Collected Works of VI Lenin

W O R K E R S O F A L L C O U N T R I E S , U N I T E!

L E N I N

COLLECTED WORKS

THE RUSSIAN EDITION WAS PRINTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A DECISION OF THE NINTH CONGRESS OF THE R.C.P.(B.) AND THE SECOND CONGRESS OF SOVIETS OF THE U.S.S.R. ИНCTИTУT МАРÇCИзМА — ЛЕНИНИзМА пpи ЦK KНCC

B. n. l d H n H

С О Ч И Н E Н И Я

И з д a н u е ч е m в е p m o e

ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЕ ИЗДАТЕЛЬСТВО ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЙ ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ M О С К В А V. I. L E N I N

cOLLEcTED WORKS

VOLUME 41 18o – October 1o 17

PROGRESS PUBLISHERS MOSCOW TRANSLATED FROM THE RUSSIAN BY YURI SDOBNIKOV

From Marx to Mao

M L © Digital Reprints 2014 www.marx2mao.com

First printing 1969 Second printing 1971 Third printing 1977

10102—210 л беэ объявл. 014 (01)—77 7

C O N T E N T S

Page

Preface ...... 27 1896-1904

COMMUNICATION ON BEHALF OF THE “STARIKI” TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ST. PETERSBURG LEAGUE OF STRUGGLE FOR THE EMANCIPATION OF THE WORKING CLASS .... 33 FOR THE DRAFT AGREEMENT WITH STRUVE ...... 34 SECRET DOCUMENT ...... 35 REMARKS ON RYAZANOV’S ARTICLE “TWO TRUTHS” .... 36 MATERIAL FOR WORKING OUT THE R.S.D.L.P. PROGRAMME 38 1. OUTLINE OF VARIOUS POINTS OF THE PRACTICAL SECTION OF THE DRAFT PROGRAMME ...... 38 2. OUTLINE OF PLEKHANOV’S FIRST DRAFT PRO- GRAMME WITH SOME AMENDMENTS ...... 39 3. RECORD OF POINTS ONE AND TWO OF PLEKHA- NOV’S FIRST DRAFT PROGRAMME, AND OUTLINE OF POINT ONE OF THE PROGRAMME’S THEORETICAL SECTION...... 42 4. INITIAL VARIANT OF THE THEORETICAL SECTION OF THE DRAFT PROGRAMME ...... 43 5. OUTLINES OF PLAN OF THE DRAFT PROGRAMME 47 6. INITIAL VARIANT OF THE AGRARIAN SECTION AND THE CONCLUDING SECTION OF THE DRAFT PRO- GRAMME ...... 48 7. OUTLINES OF THE DRAFT PROGRAMME ...... 49 8. ADDENDA TO THE AGRARIAN AND FACTORY SEC- TIONS OF THE DRAFT PROGRAMME ...... 53 REPLIES TO PLEKHANOV’S AND AXELROD’S REMARKS ON THE ARTICLE “THE AGRARIAN PROGRAMME OF RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY” ...... 53 INTRODUCTION TO THE LEAFLET OF THE DON COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. “TO THE CITIZENS OF RUSSIA” .... 69 INTRODUCTION TO THE LEAFLET “TO THE CITIZENS OF ALL RUSSIA” ...... 70 PLAN FOR A PAMPHLET AGAINST THE S. R.s ...... 70 8 CONTENTS

THE SECOND CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. July 17 (30)-August 10 (?3), 1903 ...... 78 1. PROGRAMME OF THE R.S.D.L.P. REGULAR SECOND CONGRESS ...... 78 2. SPEECHES DURING THE EXAMINATION OF THE LIST OF QUESTIONS SUBJECT TO DEBATE AT THE CON- GRESS. July 17 (30) ...... 85 1 ...... 85 2 ...... 85 3. SPEECH ON THE ACTIONS OF THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE. July 18 (31) ...... 85 4. SPEECH ON THE ATTENDANCE OF THE POLISH SO- CIAL-DEMOCRATS AT THE CONGRESS. July 18 (31) 86 5. SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE GENERAL SECTION OF THE PARTY PROGRAMME. July ?9 (August 11) 86 6. SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE GENERAL PO- LITICAL DEMANDS OF THE PARTY PROGRAMME July 30 (August 1?) ...... 86 1 ...... 86 2 ...... 87 3 ...... 87 7. SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE GENERAL PO- LITICAL DEMANDS OF THE PARTY PROGRAMME. July 31 (August 13) ...... 87 8. PROPOSALS ON VARIOUS POINTS OF THE GENERAL POLITICAL DEMANDS OF THE PARTY PROGRAMME . 87 9. SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE SECTION OF THE PARTY PROGRAMME RELATING TO LABOUR PROTEC- TION. July 31 (August 13) ...... 88 1 ...... 88 2 ...... 88 10. SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE AGRARIAN PROGRAMME. August 1 (14) ...... 88 1 ...... 88 2 ...... 89 3 ...... 89 4 ...... 89 5 ...... 89 6 ...... 90 7 ...... 90 CONTENTS 9

11. SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE PARTY RULES. August ? (15) ...... 90 12. SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE PARTY RULES. August 4 (17) ...... 91 1 ...... 91 2 ...... 91 3 ...... 91 4 ...... 91 5 ...... 92 13. ADDENDUM TO PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE DRAFT PARTY RULES ...... 92 14. SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE PARTY RULES. August 5 (1FROM8) ...... MARX 92 1 ...... 92 2 ...... TO MAO 93 3 ...... 93 4 ...... 93 15. DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE STATEMENT BY MAR- TYNOV AND AKIMOV. August 5 (18) ...... 93 16. SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE STATEMENT BY 8 MARTYNOV AND AKIMOV. August 5 (1 ) ...... 94 1 ...... 94 2 ...... 94 17. ADDENDUM TONOT MARTOV’S FOR RESOLUTION ON THE BUND’S WITHDRAWAL FROM THE R. S. D. L. P.... 95 18. SPEECH DURINGCOMMERCIAL THE ELECTION OF THE PARTY’S CENTRAL COMMITTEE. August 7 (?0) ...... 95 19. SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION OF POTRESOVDISTRIBUTION (STAROVER) ON THE ATTITUDE TO THE LIBERALS. August 10 (?3) ...... 96 THE LAW ON COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO WORKERS IN- JURED IN ACCIDENTS ...... 96 TO THE MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE SECOND CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P...... 103 TO THE MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE SECOND CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P...... 104 THE SECOND CONGRESS OF THE LEAGUE OF RUSSIAN REVO- LUTIONARY SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY ABROAD. October 13-18 (?6-31), 1903 ...... 104 1 . REMARKS ON THE AGENDA. October 13 (?6 ) .... 104 1 ...... 104 10 CONTENTS

2 ...... 105 3 ...... 105 2. PREFATORY REMARK TO THE REPORT ON THE SECOND CONGRESS OF THE R. S. D. L. P. October 13 (?6) ...... 105 3. STATEMENT CONCERNING MARTOV’S REPORT. Octo- ber 16 (?9) ...... 106 4. SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE LEAGUE RULES. October 17 (30) ...... 106 1 ...... 106 2 ...... 106 5. SPEECH ON THE RESULT OF THE VOTING OF THE RESOLUTIONS ON THE LEAGUE RULES. October 17 (30) ...... 107 DECISION OF THE PARTY COUNCIL. Geneva. November 1, 1903 ...... 107 R.S.D.L.P. COUNCIL. January 15-17 (?8-30), 1904 .... 108 1 . REMARK ON A POINT OF ORDER. January 15 (?8) .. 108 2. REMARKS ON THE AGENDA. January 16 (?9) .... 108 1 ...... 108 2 ...... 108 3. SPEECH MOTIONING A DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PEACE IN THE PARTY. January 16 (?9) ...... 109 4. SPEECH CONCERNING THE MINORITY OPINION EN- TERED BY THE C. C. REPRESENTATIVES. January 17 (30) ...... 109 5. SPEECH IN DEFENCE OF THE MINORITY OPINION OF THE C.C. REPRESENTATIVES. January 17 (30) .... 110 6. REMARK ON THE AGENDA. January 17 (30) .... 110 7. DRAFT RESOLUTION MOVED ON JANUARY 17 (30) . 110 ON BEHALF OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC LABOUR PARTY ...... 111 TO THE RUSSIAN PROLETARIAT ...... 111 THREE OUTLINES FOR A REPORT ON THE PARIS COMMUNE 113 1 ...... 113 2 ...... 119 3 ...... 121 R.S.D.L.P. COUNCIL. May 31 and June 5 (June 13 and 18) 1904 ...... 122 CONTENTS 11

1. REMARK ON THE AGENDA. May 31 (June 13) .... 122 2. SPEECHES ON AN INTER- PARTY CONFERENCE. May 31 (June 13) ...... 122 1 ...... 122 2 ...... 122 3. SPEECHES ON R.S.D.L.P. REPRESENTATION AT THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONGRESS. May 31 (June 13) ...... 123 1 ...... 123 2 ...... 123 3 ...... 123 4. REMARK ON THE NEED OF CONTROL OVER THE GNCHAK NEWSPAPER. May 31 (June 13) ...... 124 5. MOTION OF AMENDMENT TO MARTOV’S RESOLUTION ON THE RIGHT OF THE C.O. AND THE C.C. TO RE- CALL THEIR REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE PARTY COUNCIL. June 5 (18) ...... 124 6. SPEECH ON CO-OPTATION TO THE COMMITTEES AND ON THE C.C.’S RIGHT TO APPOINT NEW MEMBERS. June 5 (18) ...... 124 7. SPEECHES ON THE VOTING PROCEDURE IN DECIDING THE QUESTION OF CONVENING THE THIRD CON- GRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. June 5 (18) ...... 125 1 ...... 125 2 ...... 125 3 ...... 125 4 ...... 126 8. SPEECHES ON THE QUESTION OF PUBLISHING THE MINUTES OF THE PARTY COUNCIL SITTINGS. June 5 (18) ...... 126 1 ...... 126 2 ...... 127 3 ...... 127 STATEMENT ON THE TRANSFER OF THE POWERS OF THE R. S. D. L.P. C.C. REPRESENTATIVES ABROAD ...... 127 DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE MAJORITY’S GENEVA GROUP 127 PLANS FOR AN ARTICLE “THE PEASANTRY AND SOCIAL- DEMOCRACY” ...... 129 1 ...... 129 2 ...... 129 PLAN FOR A PROPAGANDA TALK ON CRISES ...... 131 12 CONTENTS

PLAN FOR THREE TALKS ON THE SOCIAL- DEMOCRATIC PROGRAMME ...... 132 NOTE BY THE VPERYOD EDITORIAL BOARD TO THE LET- TER OF THEIR ST. PETERSBURG CORRESPONDENT .... 133 OUTLINE OF THESES FOR AN ARTICLE “HOW THEY DEFEND THEMSELVES” ...... 134 STATEMENT BY THE GROUP OF FOUNDERS OF THE R. S. D. L. P. LIBRARY AT GENEVA ...... 136

1905-1910

PLAN FOR AN ARTICLE “1895 AND 1905 (SHORT PARALLEL)” 137 A MILITANT AGREEMENT FOR THE UPRISING AND THE FORMATION OF A COMBAT COMMITTEE ...... 138 RECORD OF SPEECHES AT THE GENEVA BOLSHEVIK CLUB. Minutes of March 6, 1905 ...... 139 I...... 139 II...... 140 III...... 141 NOTE BY THE VPERYOD EDITORIAL BOARD TO A RESO- LUTION BY A GROUP OF WORKERS OF THE ST. PETERS- BURG METALWORKS ...... 141 THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. April 1?-?7 (April ?5- May 10), 1905 ...... 142 1. DRAFT RESOLUTIONS OF THE ORGANISING COMMIT- TEE FOR CONVENING THE THIRD CONGRESS ON THE REPRESENTATION OF CERTAIN ORGANISATIONS 142 2. O.C. DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CONGRESS ...... 144 3. SPEECH ON THE CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE REPORT CONCERNING THE KAZAN COMMITTEE’S REPRESEN- TATION AT THE CONGRESS. April 13 (?6) .... 145 4. AMENDMENT TO A CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE PROPOSAL ON THE KAZAN COMMITTEE’S REPRESEN- TATION AT THE CONGRESS. April 13 (?6) .... 146 5. SPEECH ON THE QUESTION OF A DEBATE ON THE O. C. REPORT. April 13 (?6 ) ...... 146 6. DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE DEBATE ON THE O.C. REPORT ...... 147 7. DRAFT AGENDA OF THE THIRD PARTY CONGRESS 147 8. SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE CONGRESS AGENDA. April 13 (?6) ...... 148 9. SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE CONGRESS STAND- ING ORDERS. April 13 (?6) ...... 148 CONTENTS 13

10. SPEECH MOTIONING A DRAFT RESOLUTION ON ELEC- TION OF COMMITTEES TO EXAMINE DELEGATES’ REPORTS AND TO DRAFT RESOLUTIONS. April 13 (?6) 149 11. STATEMENTS TO THE CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE OF THE CONGRESS ...... 150 1 ...... 150 2 ...... 150 12. SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE’S REPORT. April 14 (?7) ...... 151 13. DRAFT RESOLUTION ON CONFIRMATION OF THE KAZAN AND KUBAN COMMITTEES ...... 151 14. DRAFT RESOLUTION ON PROCEDURE GOVERNING VOTING AT THE CONGRESS ...... 151 15. REMARKS ON RUMYANTSEV’S DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE QUESTION OF OPEN POLITICAL ACTION BY THE R.S.D.L. P...... 152 16. THESES FOR A RESOLUTION ON THE SOCIAL-DEMO- CRATS’ PARTICIPATION IN A PROVISIONAL REVOLU- TIONARY GOVERNMENT ...... 153 17. SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION ON THE QUESTION OF OPEN POLITICAL ACTION BY THE R.S.D. L. P. April 19 (May ?) ...... 155 18. SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE DRAFT RESO- LUTION ON THE ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE GOV- ERNMENT’S TACTICS ON THE EVE OF A REV- OLUTION. April 19 (May ?) ...... 155 1 ...... 155 2 ...... 155 19. RESOLUTION ON THE ATTITUDE TO THE PEASANT MOVEMENT ...... 156 20. TO THE PRESIDIUM OF THE CONGRESS ...... 157 21. OUTLINE OF A SPEECH ON THE QUESTION OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN WORKERS AND INTELLEC- TUALS IN SOCIAL- DEMOCRATIC ORGANISATIONS .. 157 22. SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE PARTY RULES. April ?1 (May 4) ...... 158 1 ...... 158 2 ...... 158 3 ...... 158 4 ...... 158 5 ...... 159 6 ...... 159 7 ...... 159 8 ...... 159 14 CONTENTS

23. SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE DRAFT RESOLU- TION ON GENERAL MEETING OF THE C.C. April ?1 (May 4) ...... 159 24. SPEECH ON THE CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE KAZAN COMMITTEE’S REPRESENTATION. April ?? (May 5) ...... 160 25. SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE DRAFT RESOLU- TIONS ON THE RELATIONS BETWEEN WORKERS AND INTELLECTUALS IN SOCIAL- DEMOCRATIC ORGAN- ISATIONS. April ?? (May 5) ...... 160 26. SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE ADDITIONAL RESOLUTION TO THE PARTY RULES ON PERIODIC CONFERENCES OF REPRESENTATIVES OF VARIOUS PARTY ORGANISATIONS. April ?? (May 5) ..... 161 1 ...... 161 2 ...... 161 27. DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE SPLINTER SECTION OF THE PARTY ...... 161 28. SPEECH ON RUMYANTSEV’S RESOLUTION ON THE SPLINTER SECTION OF THE PARTY. April ?3 (May 6) ...... 162 29.SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION ON THE ATTITUDE TOWARDS NON- RUSSIAN SOCIAL- DEMOCRATIC ORGANISATIONS. April ?3 (May 6) . 162 30. SPEECH ON THE QUESTION OF THE ATTITUDE TO THE LIBERALS. April ?3 (May 6) ...... 163 31. SPEECH ON THE REPORT ON THE WORK OF THE C.C. April ?5 (May 8) ...... 163 32. PROPOSAL ON PROCEDURE GOVERNING ELECTION TO THE C.C. April ?5 (May 8) ...... 164 33. DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE TIME OF THE C.C.’S ENTRY INTO OFFICE ...... 164 34. SPEECH ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE PROCEED- INGS OF THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. April ?5 (May 8) ...... 164 35. AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT RESOLUTION ON PROPAGANDA AND AGITATION ...... 165 36. SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION ON THE EVENTS IN THE CAUCASUS. April ?6 (May 9) 165 1 ...... 165 2 ...... 166 PLAN FOR A REPORT ON THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THE R. S.D.L.P. AND ITS DECISIONS ...... 166 CONTENTS 15

REMARKS ON THE ARTICLE “ON A PROVISIONAL REVOLU- TIONARY GOVERNMENT” ...... 168 ESSAY ON THE PARTY SPLIT ...... 168 THE LATEST NEWS REPORT ...... 169 NOTE BY THE COMMITTEE FOR PUBLICATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE R. S. D. L.P. THIRD CONGRESS TO THE TEXT OF THE MINUTES ...... 170 DRAFT LEAFLET ...... 171 OUTLINE OF TACTICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BOL- SHEVIKS AND MENSHEVIKS OVER THE ATTITUDE TO THE BULYGIN DUMA ...... 172 REMARKS ON THE QUESTION OF ELECTIONS TO THE BULY- GIN DUMA ...... 173 PLAN FOR AN ARTICLE “THE PRINCIPAL TASK OF SOCIAL- IST POLICY” ...... 174 NOTE ...... 175 RUSSIA’S FINANCES ...... 176 INSERTIONS FOR V. KALININ’S ARTICLE “THE PEASANT CONGRESS” ...... 177 1 ...... 177 2 ...... 177 SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF THE POWERS OF REPRESENTATION OF THE DISTRICT AND THE VYBORG ORGANISATIONS AT THE ST. PETERSBURG CITY CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. February 11 (?4), 1906 .. 178 1 ...... 178 2 ...... 178 3 ...... 179 4 ...... 179 5 ...... 179 THE UNITY CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. April 10- ? 5 (April ?3 -May 8), 1906 ...... 179 1. SPEECHES AT THE SECOND SITTING OF THE CONG- RESS CONCERNING THE ROLL- CALL VOTE ON THE WRITTEN STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE CONG- RESS BUREAU ...... 179 1 ...... 179 2 ...... 180 2. SPEECH AT THE THIRD SITTING OF THE CONGRESS . 180 16 CONTENTS

3. PROPOSAL ON FORMULATING POINT VIII OF THE DRAFT AGENDA FOR THE CONGRESS ...... 180 4. WRITTEN STATEMENT AT THE 15TH SITTING OF THE CONGRESS ...... 181 5. SPEECH AT THE 24TH SITTING OF THE CONGRESS . 181 AMONG THE NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES ...... 181 AMONG THE NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES ...... 182 AMONG THE NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES ...... 183 AMONG THE NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES ...... 185 THE SECOND CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. (FIRST ALL- RUSSIA CONFERENCE), November 3 -7 (16-?0), 1906 ... 186 1. REPORT ON THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN FOR THE SECOND DUMA. November 4 (17) ...... 186 2. SUMMING- UP SPEECH ON THE REPORT ON THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN FOR THE SECOND DUMA. No- vember 4 (17) ...... 187 3. SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE MENSHEVIK ELEC- TORAL PLATFORM. November 6 (19) ...... 187 4. SPEECHES ON THE QUESTION OF CONVENING A “LA- BOUR CONGRESS”. November 7 (?0) ...... 188 1 ...... 188 2 ...... 188 5. MINORITY OPINION ENTERED AT THE ALL- RUS- SIA CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIAL- DEMOCRATIC DELEGATES OF POLAND, THE LATVIAN TERRITORY, ST. PETERSBURG, MOS- COW, THE CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL REGION AND THE VOLGA AREA ...... 188 LABOUR CONGRESS AND MERGER WITH THE S.R.s (Note) . 191 REPORT AT A CONFERENCE OF THE ST. PETERSBURG ORGANISATION OF THE R.S.D.L.P. ON ELECTORAL AGREE- MENTS IN ELECTIONS FOR THE SECOND DUMA. January 6 (19), 1907. Brief Newspaper Report .... 193 ARE THE MENSHEVIKS ENTITLED TO CONDUCT A POLICY OF SUPPORTING THE CADETS? ...... 194 REPLY TO L. MARTOV ...... 196 THE FIFTH CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. April 30-May 19 (May 13-June 1), 1907 ...... 197 1. SPEECH AGAINST THE PROPOSAL TO CLOSE THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF THE CONGRESS AGENDA. May 1 (14) ...... 197 CONTENTS 17

2. SPEECH IN DEFENCE OF THE NAME- TICKET VOTE METHOD. May ? (15) ...... 197 3. SPEECHES FROM THE CHAIR AT THE SIXTH SITTING OF THE CONGRESS. May 3 (16) ...... 198 1 ...... 198 2 ...... 198 4. OBJECTION TO LIEBER’S AMENDMENT TO THE BOL- SHEVIK RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE CONG- RESS ON THE ATTITUDE TO BOURGEOIS PARTIES. May 15 (?8) ...... 198 5. SPEECH ON DESIGNATING THE CONGRESS. May 19 (June 1) ...... 199 ON THE TASKS OF THE PROLETARIAT AT THE CURRENT STAGE OF THE BOURGEOIS- DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION .. 199 NOTES TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE STUTTGART CONGRESS ON “MILITARISM AND INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS” ... 200 NOTES TO CLARA ZETKIN’S ARTICLE “INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONGRESS IN STUTTGART” ...... 201 ANTI- MILITARIST PROPAGANDA AND YOUNG SOCIALIST WORKERS’ LEAGUES ...... 204 HOW THE SOCIALIST- REVOLUTIONARIES WRITE HISTORY .. 207 THE THIRD DUMA AND SOCIAL- DEMOCRACY ...... 209 PLENARY MEETING OF THE R.S.D.L.P. CENTRAL COMMITTEE. August 11-13 (?4-?6), 1908 ...... 216 1. STATEMENT ON THE CONVOCATION OF THE C. C. PLENARY MEETING ...... 216 2. DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE INCIDENT OVER THE CONVOCATION OF THE C.C. PLENARY MEETING ... 217 3. DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE ORGANISATION OF THE CENTRAL BUREAU ABROAD ...... 217 THE FIFTH ALL-RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. December ?1-?7, 1908 (January 3-9, 1909) ...... 218 1. OUTLINE OF SPEECH ON THE QUESTION OF OR- GANISATION ...... 218 2. EXPLANATION TO SPEECH ON THE QUESTION OF ORGANISATION ...... 219 3. PROPOSAL ON PROCEDURE FOR VOTING RESOLUTIONS 219 4. DRAFT RESOLUTION ON PUBLICATION OF CON- FERENCE DECISIONS ...... 220 18 CONTENTS

5. STATEMENT OF FACT ...... 220 6. STATEMENT CONCERNING THE MENSHEVIK DRAFT ON LIQUIDATING THE C. C...... 220 PLAN FOR LECTURES ON MARXISM ...... 221 CONFERENCE OF THE ENLARGED EDITORIAL BOARD OF “PROLETARY”. June 8 -17 (?1-30), 1909 ...... 222 1. SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION ON AGITATION FOR A BOLSHEVIK CONGRESS OR A BOL- SHEVIK CONFERENCE SEPARATE FROM THE PARTY. June 8 (?1) ...... 222 1 ...... 222 2 ...... 223 2. SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF OT- ZOVISM AND ULTIMATUMISM. June 9 (??) ...... 223 3. SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF THE PARTY SCHOOL ON CAPRI. June 10 (?3) ...... 225 4. SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF THE FACTION’S UNITY. June 1? (?5) ...... 226 5. FIRST SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF BOLSHEVIK TASKS RELATING TO DUMA ACTIVITY. June 1? (?5) ...... 227 6. ADDENDUM TO THE RESOLUTION “ON THE ATTITUDE TO DUMA ACTIVITY AMONG THE OTHER BRANCHES OF PARTY WORK” ...... 228 7. SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF THE PARTY PRESS. June 15 (?8) ...... 229 8. SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF PUB- LISHING PHILOSOPHICAL ARTICLES IN THE CEN- TRAL ORGAN. June 15 (?8) ...... 229 9. PROPOSAL ON THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR A NEWSPAPER OF THE DUMA GROUP. June 16 (?9) . 229 10. SPEECHES AND PROPOSALS IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF REORGANISING THE BOLSHEVIK CENTRE. June 17 (30) ...... 230 1 ...... 230 2 ...... 230 3 ...... 230 4 ...... 230 PLAN FOR A LECTURE “THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONGRESS IN COPENHAGEN AND ITS IMPORTANCE” ... 230 CONTENTS 19

1911-1914 PLAN FOR A LECTURE IN A COURSE ON “FUNDAMENTALS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY”. Lecture IV ...... 232 MEETING OF THE R.S.D.L.P. CENTRAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS. May ?8 -June 4 (June 10-17), 1911 ...... 233 1. REPORT ON THE STATE OF AFFAIRS IN THE PARTY . 233 2. SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF CONSTITUTING THE MEETING. May ?8 (June 10) . 237 1 ...... 237 2 ...... 237 3 ...... 238 4 ...... 238 3. SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF CONVENING A C. C PLENARY MEETING, May 30 (June 1?) ...... 239 1 ...... 239 2 ...... 239 3 ...... 239 4 ...... 240 4. PROPOSAL FOR RESOLUTION ON CONVENING A PARTY CONFERENCE ...... 240 5. STATEMENT ...... 240 STATEMENT ...... 241 INSERTION FOR L. B. KAMENEV’S PAMPHLET TWO PARTIES 241 PLAN FOR A LECTURE “MANIFESTO OF THE LIBERAL LA- BOUR PARTY” ...... 242 PROPOSAL ON RULES FOR THE ORGANISATION ABROAD MOTIONED AT A MEETING OF BOLSHEVIK GROUPS ABROAD 243 OUTLINE OF A REPORT ON THE POLITICAL SITUATION . 243 THE SIXTH (PRAGUE) ALL-RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. January 5-17 (18-30), 191? ...... 245 1. TO THE DRAFT RESOLUTION “ON THE RUSSIAN ORGANISING COMMISSION FOR CONVENING THE CONFERENCE” ...... 245 2. OUTLINE OF SPEECH ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CONFERENCE ...... 246 3. REPORT ON THE WORK OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST BUREAU. January 7 (?0), 191? ...... 247 4. SPEECH ON THE ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION ON COMBATING THE FAMINE. January 8 (?1), 191? ... 249 20 CONTENTS

5. DRAFT CHANGES IN THE PARTY’S ORGANISATIONAL RULES ...... 249 6. SPEECH ON THE ORGANISATIONAL QUESTION. January 11 (?4), 191? ...... 250 7. TO THE DRAFT RESOLUTION “ON THE CHARACTER AND ORGANISATIONAL FORMS OF PARTY WORK” 252 8. MATERIAL FOR THE RESOLUTION ON THE “PETITION CAMPAIGN” ...... 252 PLAN FOR A LECTURE “REVOLUTIONARY UPSURGE OF THE RUSSIAN PROLETARIAT” ...... 254 ROSA LUXEMBURG AND THE POLISH “PARTEI” VORSTAND IN MARTOV’S WAKE ...... 255 REPLY TO LIQUIDATORS’ ARTICLE IN LEIPZIGER VOLKS- ZEITUNG ...... 260 TO ALL THE CITIZENS OF RUSSIA ...... 262 ON POLITICAL SPINELESSNESS (Letter to the Editor) ... 266 REPORT TO THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST BUREAU, “ELECTIONS TO THE FOURTH DUMA” ...... 267 MORE ABOUT THE PEASANT DEPUTIES IN THE FOURTH DUMA ...... 271 RESOLUTION OF THE CRACOW MEETING OF THE R.S.D.L.P. CENTRAL COMMITTEE WITH PARTY FUNCTIONARIES ON THE REORGANISATION AND WORK OF THE PRAVDA EDI- TORIAL BOARD ...... 272 LETTER TO THE EXECUTIVE OF THE GERMAN SOCIAL- DEMOCRATIC PARTY ...... 274 PRAVDA’S ANNIVERSARY (Workers’ Support for the Work- ing Class Newspaper) ...... 278 THE STRUGGLE OF PARTIES IN CHINA ...... 281 CONCERNING THE EDITORIAL IN THE NEWSPAPER LUCH No. 189 ...... 283 LANDOWNERS ON THE MIGRATION OF AGRICULTURAL LA- BOUR ...... 285 WORKING- CLASS PARTY AND LIBERAL RIDERS (On Potresov) 287 CAPITALISTS AND ARMAMENTS ...... 288 CHEAP MEAT FOR THE “PEOPLE” ...... 289 DRAFT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE R.S.D.L.P. C.C. AND THE PRIBOI GROUP ON ITS RECOGNITION AS THE R.S.D.L.P. C.C. PUBLISHERS ...... 291 THE OCTOBRISTS AND THE WORKING- CLASS MOVEMENT 292 CONTENTS 21

ON THE “JUBILEE OF THE RUSSIAN INTELLIGENTSIA” . 294 DRAFT RESOLUTION BY WORKERS’ ORGANISATIONS ON THE SLANDEROUS LIQUIDATORS’ CHARGE AGAINST IN- SURANCE WORKER X ...... 296 RUSSIAN WORKERS’ ASSESSMENT OF THE SPLIT IN THE DUMA SOCIAL- DEMOCRATIC GROUP ...... 296 OUTLINE OF A REPORT TO LOCAL ORGANISATIONS ON THE PORONIN JOINT CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. C.C. AND PARTY FUNCTIONARIES (1913) ...... 297 ON THE QUESTION OF THE BUREAU’S NEXT STEPS ... 299 THE POVERTY OF THE PEOPLE’S TEACHERS ...... 300 RUSSIAN WORKERS AND THE INTERNATIONAL ..... 302 HOW THE LIQUIDATORS ARE CHEATING THE WORKERS . 305 RESOLUTION ON THE SOCIALIST BUREAU’S DECISION ... 308 ABOUT OUR SCHOOLS ...... 310 THE DUMA GROUP AND THE MAJORITY OUTSIDE ..... 311 THESES FOR A LECTURE ON THE NATIONAL QUESTION . 313 INSERTION FOR N. K. KRUPSKAYA’S ARTICLE “ON THE QUESTION OF THE POLICY OF THE MINISTRY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION” ...... 323 THE FOURTH SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS OF THE LATVIAN TERRITORY. January 13-?6 (January ?6-Febru- ary 8), 1914 ...... 324 1. REPORT OF THE R.S.D.L.P. CENTRAL COMMITTEE AT THE FOURTH SOCIAL- DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS OF THE LATVIAN TERRITORY ...... 324 2. SUMMING- UP SPEECH AT THE FOURTH SOCIAL- DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS OF THE LATVIAN TERRI- TORY ...... 327 3. DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE ATTITUDE OF THE SO- CIAL- DEMOCRATS OF THE LATVIAN TERRITORY TO THE R.S.D.L.P...... 329 RESOLUTION OF THE R.S.D.L.P. CENTRAL COMMITTEE ON SETTING UP AN ORGANISATIONAL SECTION OF THE C.C. TO DIRECT ILLEGAL WORK ...... 330 REVIEW. I. M. Kozminykh-Lanin. Overtime at Facto- ries and Plants in Moscow Gubernia ...... 331 DECISION OF THE R.S.D. L. P. CENTRAL COMMITTEE ... 334 POLISH OPPOSITION AT THE BRUSSELS CONFERENCE ... 334 PLANS FOR AN ARTICLE “REVOLUTION AND WAR” ... 335 1 ...... 335 2 ...... 335 22 CONTENTS

1914-1917 ON THE SLOGAN TO TRANSFORM THE IMPERIALIST WAR INTO A CIVIL WAR ...... 337 PLAN FOR A PAMPHLET THE EUROPEAN WAR AND EUROPEAN SOCIALISM ...... 337 TO THE AUTHOR OF THE SONG OF THE FALCON .... 344 EDITORIAL NOTE TO THE ARTICLE “THE UKRAINE AND THE WAR” ...... 345 DRAFT POINT THREE OF THE RESOLUTION “THE C.O. AND THE NEW PAPER”, ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. SECTIONS ABROAD ...... 346 DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST WOMEN’S CONFERENCE ...... 346 THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONFERENCE AT ZIMMERWALD. August ?5-?6 (September 5-8), 1915 ... 349 1. VARIANT OF THE DRAFT RESOLUTION OF LEFT- WING SOCIAL- DEMOCRATS FOR THE FIRST INTER- NATIONAL SOCIALIST CONFERENCE ...... 349 2. THESES FOR A REPORT AT A MEETING OF LEFT- WING SOCIAL- DEMOCRATS ...... 351 3. PLAN FOR A SPEECH AT THE ZIMMERWALD CONFE- RENCE ...... 352 4. SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE MANIFESTO AND THE DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE WAR AND THE TASKS OF SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY. August ?6 (Septem- ber 7 ) ...... 353 1 ...... 353 2 ...... 354 5. ADDENDA TO THE STATEMENT BY THE ZIMMER- WALD LEFT ...... 355 GERMAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY AND THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF- DETERMINATION ...... 355 AMENDMENTS AND ADDENDA TO THE APPEAL “TO ALL AFFILIATED PARTIES AND GROUPS”, ADOPTED BY A CON- FERENCE OF THE ENLARGED INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST COMMISSION ...... 356 PLAN FOR A LECTURE ON “TWO INTERNATIONALS” ...358-59 NOTE TO THE THESES “SOCIALIST REVOLUTION AND THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF- DETERMINATION” ... 366 DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE R.S.D.L.P. CENTRAL COMMIT- TEE TO TERMINATE PUBLICATION OF THE JOURNAL KOM- MUNIST ...... 367 CONTENTS 23

THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONFERENCE AT KIENTHAL. April 11-17 (?4-30), 1916 ...... 369 1. INITIAL VARIANT OF THE R.S.D.L.P. CENTRAL COM- MITTEE PROPOSAL ...... 369 2. SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION ON CONVENING THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST BUREAU April 15, (?8) ...... 379 1 ...... 379 2 ...... 380 3 ...... 380 ON THE DECLARATION BY THE POLISH SOCIAL- DEMOCRATS AT THE ZIMMERWALD CONFERENCE ...... 380 PLAN FOR AN ARTICLE “ON THE QUESTION OF THE ROLE OF THE STATE” ...... 381 THESES ON THE ATTITUDE OF THE SWISS SOCIAL- DEMO- CRATIC PARTY TO THE WAR ...... 382 REMARKS ON AN ARTICLE ABOUT MAXIMALISM ..... 384 PLANS FOR A PAMPHLET STATISTICS AND SOCIOLOGY . 387 1 ...... 387 2 ...... 389 3 ...... 390 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CENTRE AS A TREND IN INTER- NATIONAL SOCIAL- DEMOCRACY ...... 391 PLAN FOR AN ARTICLE “THE LESSONS OF THE WAR” .. 393 OUTLINE OF FIFTH “LETTER FROM AFAR”...... 394 REPLIES TO A CORRESPONDENT OF THE NEWSPAPER POLI- TIKEN. MARCH 31 (APRIL 13), 1917 ...... 396 REPLY TO F. STRÖM, A SPOKESMAN OF THE LEFT- WING SWEDISH SOCIAL- DEMOCRATS. MARCH 31 (APRIL 13), 1917 396 RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONARIES’ TRIP ACROSS GERMANY. Commiuniqué of the Group ...... 397 SPEECH AT A CONFERENCE WITH LEFT-WING SWEDISH SO- CIAL-DEMOCRATS. MARCH 31 (APRIL 13), 1917. Newspaper Report ...... 398 SPEECH IN THE FINLAND STATION SQUARE TO WORKERS, SOLDIERS AND SAILORS. APRIL 3 (16), 1917. Newspaper Report 399 “LIBERTY LOAN” (Draft Resolution Worked Out by the Bol- shevik Group of the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies) .... 399 PETROGRAD CITY R.S.D.L.P.(B.) CONFERENCE. April 14-?? (April ?7-May 5), 1917 ...... 400 24 CONTENTS

1. REPORT ON THE PRESENT SITUATION AND THE AT- TITUDE TOWARDS THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT. APRIL 14 (27). Newspaper Report ...... 400 2. SPEECH IN MOVING A RESOLUTION ON THE WAR. April ?? (May 5) ...... 402 SPEECH AT A MEETING OF SOLDIERS OF AN ARMOURED BAT- TALION IN MIKHAILOVSKY MANÈGE. APRIL 15 (28), 1917. Newspaper Report ...... 402 MEETING OF THE SOLDIERS’ SECTION OF THE PETROGRAD SOVIET OF WORKERS’ AND SOLDIERS’ DEPUTIES. April 17 (30), 1917 ...... 404 1. SPEECH ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMISSION OF THE SOVIET OF SOLDIERS’ DEPUTIES 404 2. REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ...... 406 THE ATTENTION OF COMRADES! ...... 407 POGROM AGITATION IN MINISTERIAL NEWSPAPER .... 407 THE SEVENTH (APRIL) ALL-RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.(B.). April ?4-?9 (May 7-1?), 1917 ...... 409 1. SPEECH ON THE PLAN TO CONVENE AN INTERNA- TIONAL SOCIALIST CONFERENCE. April ?5 (May 8) . 409 1. Variant of Minutes ...... 409 2. Newspaper Report ...... 411 2. PROPOSAL FOR LINES OF DEBATE ON V. P. NOGIN’S REPORT ON “ATTITUDE TO THE SOVIETS OF WORKERS’ AND SOLDIERS’ DEPUTIES”. April ?5 (May 8) .. 412 3. SPEECH ON THE ATTITUDE TO THE SOVIETS OF WORK- ERS’ AND SOLDIERS’ DEPUTIES. April ?5 (May 8) . 413 1. Minutes ...... 413 2. Newspaper Report ...... 416 4. SPEECH IN DEFENCE OF THE RESOLUTION ON THE WAR. APRIL 27 (MAY 10). Newspaper Report ... 417 5. REMARKS IN THE DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION ON THE WAR. April ?7 (May 10) ...... 417 1 ...... 417 2 ...... 417 3 ...... 418 6. PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALTERATIONS IN THE R.S.D.L.P. PARTY PROGRAMME ...... 418 FOR THE PROGRAMME. Better Variant ...... 423 CONTENTS 25

7. REPORT ON THE QUESTION OF REVISING THE PARTY PROGRAMME. APRIL 28 (MAY 11). Newspaper Report . 424 8. REPORT ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION. APRIL 28 (MAY 11). Newspaper Report ...... 424 9. REMARK IN THE DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION. APRIL 28 (MAY 11) .. 426 10. SPEECH ON THE NATIONAL QUESTION. APRIL 29 (MAY 12). Newspaper Report ...... 426 11. SPEECH ON THE SITUATION WITHIN THE INTERNA- TIONAL AND THE TASKS OF THE R. S. D. L. P. (B. ). APRIL 29 (MAY 12). Newspaper Report ...... 427 12. REMARKS IN THE DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION ON THE CURRENT SITUATION. April ?9 (May 1?) ... 428 1 ...... 428 2 ...... 428 OUTLINE OF UNIDENTIFIED SPEECH AT A MEETING ... 429 TOO GROSS A LIE ...... 429 AN UNFINISHED AUTOBIOGRAPHY ...... 430 REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF THE SEVENTH (APRIL) ALL- RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF THE R. S. D. L. P. (B. ) AT A MEETING OF THE PETROGRAD ORGANISATION. May 8 (?1), 1917 ...... 431 PLAN OF RESOLUTION ON ECONOMIC MEASURES FOR COMBATING THE DISLOCATION ...... 434 INSERTION FOR N. K. KRUPSKAYA’S ARTICLE “A PAGE FROM THE HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC LA- BOUR PARTY” ...... 435 STATEMENT OF FACT CONCERNING THE COMMISSION OF THE NEWSPAPER VPERYOD AT A MEETING OF THE ST. PETERSBURG R.S.D.L.P.(B.) COMMITTEE. May 30 (June 1?), 1917 ...... 435 SPEECH AT A SITTING OF THE BOLSHEVIK GROUP OF THE FIRST ALL- RUSSIA CONGRESS OF SOVIETS OF WORKERS’ AND SOLDIERS’ DEPUTIES. MAY 31 (JUNE 13), 1917. Brief Newspaper Report ...... 436 DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR A CONFERENCE OF REPRESENT- ATIVES OF DISTRICT COMMITTEES AND ARMY UNITS OF PETROGRAD TOGETHER WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE C.C. AND THE P.C. June 10 (?3), 1917 ...... 437 ON THE GRIMM AFFAIR ...... 438 SHAME! ...... 439 26 CONTENTS

REPORT ON THE CURRENT SITUATION AT THE ALL- RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF FRONT AND REAR MILITARY ORGANI- SATIONS OF THE R. S. D. L. P. (B. ). JUNE 20 (JULY 3), 1917. Brief Newspaper Report ...... 439 THE POLITICAL SITUATION (Four Theses) ...... 440 LETTER OVER THE PUBLICATION OF “LEAFLET ON THE CAPTURE OF RIGA” ...... 443 FROM THE THESES FOR A REPORT AT THE OCTOBER 8 CON- FERENCE OF THE ST. PETERSBURG ORGANISATION, AND AL- SO FOR A RESOLUTION AND INSTRUCTIONS TO THOSE ELEC- TED TO THE PARTY CONGRESS ...... 446 On the List of Candidates for the Constituent Assembly 446 Note to Theses “On the List of Candidates for the Constituent Assembly” ...... 447 “THE LANDOWNERS HAVE HIT IT OFF WITH THE CADETS” 448 LETTER TO Y. M. SVERDLOV ...... 450 Notes ...... 453 Name Index ...... 601 27

PREFACE The additional volumes 41 to 45 of the present edition contain the most important of the new material included in the Fifth Russian edition of the Collected Works of V. I. Lenin. Volume 41 contains works written before the Great October Socialist Revolution, from 1896 to October 1917, which are an essential supplement to the works published in the respective volumes of the present edition. A great part of the volume consists of documents reflecting Lenin’s efforts in creating and strengthening the Bolshevik Party and working out the ideological and organisational principles, the programme and the rules of a new type of proletarian party. Among them are: “Outline of Various Points of the Practical Section of the Draft Programme”, “Record of Points One and Two of Plekhanov’s First Draft Programme, and Outline of Point One of the Programme’s Theoretical Section”, “Initial Variant of the Agrarian Section and the Concluding Section of the Draft Programme”, and Lenin’s speeches at the Second Party Congress. They show that Lenin helped the Iskra Editorial Board to draft a truly revolutionary programme. The record of the Second Congress of the League of Rus- sian Revolutionary Social-Democracy Abroad, the January and June (1904) sessions of the R.S.D.L.P. Council, “Draft Resolution of the Majority’s Geneva Group”, “Reply to L. Martov”, “Report on the State of Affairs in the Party”, and others show Lenin’s struggle against the Mensheviks’ splitting and disorganising activity after the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. A large group of documents written by Lenin in connection with the work of the Third, Fourth and Fifth Congresses of the R.S.D.L.P. is of great importance for a study of the Party’s strategy and tactics during the first Russian revolution. These documents contain propositions on the hegemony 28 PREFACE of the proletariat, the alliance of the working class and the peasantry, and the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist revolution. Considerable interest attaches to the works connected with the elaboration of Bolshevik tactics in the Duma (Parlia- ment): the report and summing-up speech on the report on the election campaign for the Second Duma and other material of the Second Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. (the First All-Russia Conference), the articles “Are the Menshe- viks Entitled To Conduct a Policy of Supporting the Cadets?”, “The Third Duma and Social-Democracy”, “Report to the International Socialist Bureau, ‘Elections to the Fourth Duma’”, “The Duma Group and the Majority Out- side”, etc. A number of works dating from the period of reaction reflect Lenin’s struggle against ideological vacillations and deviations from Marxism. Lenin waged an implacable struggle against the avowed opportunists, the Menshevik liquidators, and also against the “Left” opportunists inside the Bolshevik Party—the otzovists, the ultimatumists and the Vperyod splinter group. In addition to the material already published, the volume contains 14 works by Lenin shedding light on the conference of Proletary’s enlarged Editorial Board which condemned both liquidationism and otzovism. The volume gives a fuller picture of the meeting held by members of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee in Paris in June 1911. In his “Report on the State of Affairs in the Party” and speeches at the meeting, Lenin defined the Party’s tasks in the struggle against the anti-Party groups. The Sixth (Prague) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. brought to a close a long period of struggle against Menshevism. By expelling the Menshevik liquidators from the Party, it strengthened the Party as an all-Russia organisation, capable of giving a lead to the masses in a fresh revolutionary upsurge. The volume contains a number of documents which are of great interest for the study of the Conference. Among them are: “Report on the Work of the International Socialist Bureau”, setting out important propositions on the new epoch, an epoch of socialist revolutions and “battles against the bourgeoisie”, and on the PREFACE 29 consequent sharpening of the struggle between the revolutionary Social-Democrats and the reformists inside the European socialist parties, and “Speech on the Organisational Question”, emphasising the need to strengthen the Party’s ties with the masses and to combine legal and illegal work. The volume contains Lenin’s resolution for the Cracow meeting of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee with Party workers, “On the Reorganisation and Work of the Pravda Editorial Board”. This decision shows how the Central Committee, led by Lenin, gave effective and concrete guidance to Pravda, the Party’s most important legal organ. In some of his works—”Reply to Liquidators’ Article in Leipziger Volkszeitung”, “Letter to the Executive of the German Social-Democratic Party”, “On the Question of the Bureau’s Next Steps”, “Russian Workers and the Inter- national”, “How the Liquidators Are Cheating the Workers”, “Resolution on the Socialist Bureau’s Decision”—Lenin gives a firm rebuff to attempts by the leaders of the German Social-Democrats and the Second International to “reconcile” and unite the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks by liquidating the Bolshevik Party. Lenin’s struggle for Party unity is characterised by the documents relating to the Fourth Congress of the Social- Democrats of the Latvian territory: his report and summing- up speech, and the draft resolution on the attitude of the Social-Democrats of the Latvian territory to the R.S.D.L.P. Of the documents supplementing Lenin’s elaboration of the national question, the volume includes: “Theses for a Lecture on the National Question”, “German Social- Democracy and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination”, “Note to the Theses ‘Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination’”, “On the Declaration by the Polish Social-Democrats at the Zimmerwald Conference”, plans of an unfinished pamphlet, Statistics and Sociology, and “Speech on the National Question” at the Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.). Lenin urged the need for the workers to struggle against the danger of the world war which was being prepared by the imperialists of all countries, and exposed the opportunists who denied that such a struggle was of any real importance, 30 PREFACE an attitude which doomed the workers to a passive stand. He believed that it was a major task of the revolutionary Social-Democrats to conduct anti-militarist propaganda and spread the idea of international solidarity among the working people. This question is dealt with in the following articles: “Notes to the Resolution of the Stuttgart Congress on ‘Militarism and International Conflicts’”, “Notes to Clara Zetkin’s Article ‘International Socialist Congress in Stuttgart’”, “Anti-Militarist Propaganda and Young Socialist Workers’ Leagues” and “How the Socialist- Revolutionaries Write History”. A number of documents published in the volume relate . to the period of the First World War, namely, “On the Slogan to Transform the Imperialist War into a Civil War”, “Editorial Note to the Article ‘The Ukraine and the War’”, “Draft Point Three of the Resolution ‘The C.O. and the New Paper’, Adopted by the Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. Sections Abroad”, “Draft Resolution of the International Socialist Women’s Conference”, “Variant of the Draft Resolution of Left-wing Social-Democrats for the First International Socialist Conference”, “Plan for a Lecture on ‘Two Internationals’”, speeches at the Zimmerwald and Kienthal International Socialist conferences, “Draft Reso- lution of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee To Terminate Publication of the Journal Kommunist”, “Remarks on an Article about Maximalism” and others. These documents show the Bolshevik tactics with regard to war, peace and revolution; they explain the slogan of transforming the imperialist war into a civil war, and characterise Lenin’s activity in rallying the Left-wing and revolutionary elements within the international working-class movement round the banner of internationalism, his struggle against social- chauvinism and Kautskyism (Centrism), and against the Left-wing opportunist, sectarian stand and splitting activities of the Bukharin-Pyatakov group. A number of documents written after the bourgeois- democratic revolution in Russia in February 1917 contain Lenin’s propositions concerning the Party’s attitude to the bourgeois Provisional Government. The volume contains material connected with Lenin’s return from Switzerland to Russia in April 1917. It will be PREFACE 31 recalled that the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois press started a campaign of slander and harassment over Lenin and the Bolsheviks’ return home across Germany. This is fully exposed in the following: replies to a correspondent of the newspaper Politiken and to F. Ström, a spokesman of the Left-wing Swedish Social-Democrats, the group’s communi- que, “Russian Revolutionaries’ Trip Across Germany”, speeches at a conference with Left-wing Swedish Social- Democrats on March 31 (April 13), at a meeting of the soldiers of an armoured battalion on April 15 (28), and at a meeting of the soldiers’ section of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies on April 17 (30), “An Unfinished Autobiography”, etc. There is also a newspaper report of Lenin’s speech upon his arrival in Petrograd on April 3 (16), 1917, when he addressed workers, soldiers and sailors in the Finland Station Square from the top of an armoured car. Lenin’s return, his elaboration of a concrete plan for going over from the bourgeois-democratic revolution to a socialist revolution, and the open exposition of his plan in the press and in speeches at numerous meetings helped to orient the Party towards preparations for a socialist revolution. A tremendous part in this effort was played by the Petrograd City and the Seventh All-Russia Party conferences held in April 1917. Some of Lenin’s reports and speeches at these conferences are published both according to the minutes and the newspaper reports, which gives a fuller idea of their content. The volume also contains “Report on the Results of the Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.) at a Meeting of the Petrograd Organi- sation” on May 8 (21), 1917. A number of documents in the volume deal with the drafting of the Party’s second programme, which charted the building of a socialist economy in Russia. Among them are: “Outline of Fifth ‘Letter from Afar’”, “Preliminary Draft Alterations in the R.S.D.L.P. Party Programme”, which was the basis for “Proposed Amendments to the Doctrinal, Political and Other Sections of the Programme” (see Vol. 24, pp. 459-63), “Report on the Question of Revising the Party Programme” at the Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.), etc. 32 PREFACE

The Party’s policy on the basic aspects of the revolution, such as war, peace and the agrarian question, is explained in the “Speech at a Sitting of the Bolshevik Group of the First All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Workers’ and Sol- diers’ Deputies”, “Report on the Current Situation at the All-Russia Conference of Front and Rear Military Organisations of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.)”, the articles “The Attention of Comrades!”, “Too Gross a Lie”, “On the Grimm Affair”, “Shame!” and others. The theses “The Political Situation”, which Lenin wrote after the July events, were published as an article in the newspaper Proletarskoye Dyelo, and that was how they appeared in Volume 25. Here they are given in their original form. They defined the Party’s new tasks and tactics in the changed political situation. Great interest attaches to the “Letter Over the Publication of ‘Leaflet on the Capture of Riga’”, which was published for the first time in the Fifth Russian edition. Lenin gives important instructions in the item “On the List of Candidates for the Constituent Assembly” from his “Theses for a Report at the October 8 Conference of the St. Petersburg Organisation, and also for a Resolution and Instructions to Those Elected to the Party Congress”, part of which was published in Vol- ume 26. In a letter to Y. M. Sverdlov, Lenin exposes Kame- nev and Zinoviev’s strike-breaking behaviour and voices his confidence in the victory of the revolution. A considerable part of the documents consists of preparatory material, such as plans, notes, outlines and theses, which show Lenin’s methods and thoroughness in preparing his works. The plans of unfinished or unwritten articles, and plans for speeches and lectures which either have not been recorded, or of which a record no longer exists, are of great importance, because some of them contain vital theoretical propositions and characterise the Party’s tasks. This volume contains 47 of Lenin’s works which were first published in the Fifth Russian edition.

Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the C.P.S.U. Central Committee 33

QXYV -QYPT

COMMUNICATION ON BEHALF OF THE “STARIKI” TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ST. PETERSBURG LEAGUE OF STRUGGLE FOR THE EMANCIPATION OF THE WORKING CLASS1

Mikhailov first put in an appearance at St. Petersburg in 1891 as a Kharkov student expelled for making trouble. He entered a student organisation which bore the name of “corporation”2 even after it fell apart. There was a rumour at the dental courses about his behaviour during a suspicious acquaintanceship; he was accused of spending money collected for the famine-stricken, but he made good the loss. At that time, he became intimate with....* In January 1894, a search was also carried out in the homes of many former members of the said “corporation”, including Mikhailov himself. At the interrogations, all heard a detailed reading on the membership of the society, etc. The gendarmes declared that the case arose on the strength of information supplied by a former member. Mikhailov was cleared of all suspicion by the gendarmes saying that importance had been attached to this trivial case only because an obvious revolutionary was involved in it. At the same time, a strike took place at the Voronin factory.3 Mikhailov insinuated himself among them and started to make collections for their benefit. In February, eight workers who had dealt with Mikhailov and one student who had collected money on his assignment (Talalayev) were arrested. After that Mikhailov again started to edge closer to the ouvriers** and managed to penetrate into circles

* MS. illegible.—Ed. ** Workers.—Ed. 34 V. I. LENIN led by Narodovoltsi.4 The latter were arrested in the summer of 1894. The inquiry revealed that the police had been informed of a great deal. At the inquiry involving our Stariki there was the charge that they were acquainted with some of these Narodovoltsi, but it happened....* The first Mikhailov case came to an end soon after* and others were exiled, but he was let off and told everyone that he had petitioned for clemency and that he had done so with the intention of continuing to work on the old lines. Unfortun- ately, some people failed to regard this fact as being sufficiently disgraceful and gave him their patronage, so that he who did not command any personal respect among the workers was given an opportunity to consolidate and extend his ties. There follows a description of his methods, his pressing of money on workers, his invitations to them to visit him at home, the revelation of Party names, etc. In this way and because he enjoyed the full confidence of the said persons, he soon discovered the identity of many members of various groups. They were all arrested. When a worker ...* said that he had received books from Mikhailov, the latter was de- tained, but at once released and is still in St. Petersburg. As one of the accused at the inquiry, he informed on all his comrades; some of the accused ...* were read his detailed report on the membership of various groups. (Signatures.)

Written in 1896 First published in 1958Printed from in Vol. 2 of the Fifth Russianthe original edition of the Collected Works

FOR THE DRAFT AGREEMENT WITH STRUVE5

Representatives of the Zarya-Iskra Social-Democratic group and the Svoboda democratic opposition group have agreed on the following: 1) The Zarya group shall publish with the magazine of the same name a special supplement entitled Sovremennoye Obozreniye in the editing of which the Svoboda group will take part.

* MS. illegible.—Ed. SECRET DOCUMENT 35

2) The editing shall be conducted on the following basis: each of the sides has the right of veto in respect of material and articles. 3) Programme of the publication: a) material and documents relating to the activity of the government,* government, public and class institutions, etc.; b) articles on questions of domestic public life in Russia and the government’s domestic and foreign policy; c) domestic reviews. 4) Both sides undertake to make efforts to supply material for Sovremennoye Obozreniye. But the Zarya6 Editorial Board is free to carry in its special editions the material at its disposal on the subjects specified in §3, whenever it is more suitable in character for such editions. 5) The Zarya group undertakes to perform all the necessary operations in publishing, transporting and distributing Sovremennoye Obozreniye. For its part, the X group shall pay all the expenses this entails. 6) In the event the said enterprise is liquidated, each side shall receive one-half of the copies of Sovremennoye Obozreniye in stock. Note: The Zarya Editorial Board shall have the right to print announcements of its publications on the covers of Sovrernen- noye Obozreniye.

Written before January 17 (30), 1901 First published in 1959 Printed from in Vol. 4 of the Fifth Russian the original edition of the Collected Works

SECRET DOCUMENT We draw readers’ attention to Witte’s minute published by Zarya,7 which appeared in the hands of Dietz in Stuttgart. The minute, aimed against the draft of the former Minister for the Interior Goremykin on the

* The text given in brevier is in Potresov’s hand.—Ed. 36 V. I. LENIN introduction of Zemstvos in non-Zemstvo gubernias,8 is interesting as a document giving a brazen exposé of our rulers’ most secret yearnings. We hope to deal in detail with this remarkable document and with Mr. R.N.S.’s introduction to it in the next issue of our newspaper.9 This introduction, while showing that its author is aware of the political importance of the Russian working-class movement, is in all other respects marked with the usual immaturity of political thinking so characteristic of our liberals.

Iskra No. 5, June 1901Printed from the Iskra text

REMARKS ON RYAZANOV’S ARTICLE “TWO TRUTHS”10 Pp. 1. The author regards as being of primary importance what Marx said (about the two ways) in exceptional circumstances and in virtually conditional terms.11 However, the author distorts the fact, creating the impression that it was Marx himself who actually raised the question of the two ways. 7. “Laughter” at the men of the 70s (facing history) shows not “only an absolute incapacity for taking the historical standpoint”, it is also evidence of theoretical disparagement of the men of the 70s, as compared with those of the 40s and 60s. 7a. The author touches up Mikhailovsky by emphasising that the latter had opposed V. V., but failing to say that he had gone along with V. V. very much more frequently and at greater length. 8. This is a glaring untruth: blaming Mikhailovsky for the tragic demise of the Narodnaya Volya and the “going among the people”. The article is devoted to Mikhailovsky, whose Untergang* is purely persönli- cher,* and whose fate contains a kopek’s worth of the “tragic” and a ruble’s worth of the comic.

* Downfall.—Ed. ** Personal.—Ed. REMARKS ON RYAZANOV’S ARTICLE “TWO TRUTHS” 37

9. It is stupid to confuse the dressing-down of Mikhailovsky with the “shovelling of dirt on the generation of the revolutionary socialists of the 70s”. 9. NB “refuses” to follow the reflection of the revolutionary majority in legal writings. 9-10. All the “Gekreuzigte und Verbannte”* ?? (of the 70s) ? lend an avid ear to the voice of the ignoramus. 13. “Social questions give way to personal ones” (and down to the end of the page NB). ?? (A downright Pisarev approach.) 15. ...(Pisarev) “A buoyant sermon of personal happiness” ”” ”of “individualistic ?? ideals”. 18. ””“immersed in matters of personal self- improvement”. 24-25. (§III) A characteristic of the utopian socialism of the revolutionaries (of the 70s), which is confused with the Mikhailovsky trend. 28-29. Mikhailovsky frequently “sacrificed” one of the truths. But we are not interested in the ‘’latest phase” of his activity. We are concerned with Mikhailovsky only as one who has given expression to a definite trend among the young people of the 70s and 80s. 31. What are the “limits” set “by nature to the mind”? (Theory of cognition.) 29-35. Exposition of the “system of truth”. 35. ...This system “is an effort to discover the social element in reality...” which “would be concerned in realising the ideal”. 41. From the dispute with Yuzov and Co. (a dry rehash), a leap over to Yakovenko (1886). 46-48. Pendant**=Tkachov. Further Axelrod and transition to Social-Democrats. The whole exposition is dull and has little bearing on the “two foregoing” and on Mikhailov- sky.

* “The crucified and the exiled”.—Ed. ** Counterpart.—Ed. 38 V. I. LENIN

And N. —on(52)!!—with Mikhailovsky’s conclusions from his work (53). §V, from p. 57to p. 77 (78-80 about the “critics”)—the birth of Marxism. It’s all deadly dull; only on p. 82 does he return to the “old truth”. —85— We reject the division of the world into noumena and phenomena.12

Written in September-October 1901 First published in 1959Printed from in Vol. 5 of the Fifth Russianthe original edition of the Collected Works

MATERIAL FOR WORKING OUT THE R.S.D.L.P. PROGRAMME 13

1 OUTLINE OF VARIOUS POINTS OF THE PRACTICAL SECTION OF THE DRAFT PROGRAMME

13.1.0? §11. Supervision by the organs of local self- government with the participation of workers’ delegates over the sanitary state of the living

P M Q quarters provided for workers by their employers, Finished over the internal regulations on these premises

P M Q and the terms of their lease, to safeguard wage- workers against intervention by employers in their life and activity as private persons and citizens. §12. Correctly organised all-round sanitary supervision of working conditions at all enterprises employing wage labour. 13. Extension of supervision by factory inspectors to all the trades, handicrafts and cottage MATERIAL FOR WORKING OUT THE R.S.D.L.P. PROGRAMME 39

industries, and also to government enterprises and agricultural enterprises employing wage labour. 14. etc. Agrarian. With the aim of eliminating all the remnants of our old serf-owning system, the Social-

Democratic Labour Party demands:

1) cancellation of redemption payments Q

2) freedom of withdrawal from commune M 3) reduction of rents through the courts P

4) cut-off lands.14

Axelrod and Berg: “facilitating the struggle by the Q

peasant mass against capitalist relations (or M

P certain capitalist tendencies)”. P

First published in 1959 Printed from in Vol. 6 of the Fifth Russian the original edition of the Collected Works

2 OUTLINE OF PLEKHANOV’S FIRST DRAFT PROGRAMME WITH SOME AMENDMENTS

Paragraphs: I. Domination of capitalist relations: the means of production in the hands of the capitalists, and the propertyless proletarians=wage-workers—2.* II. Expansion of the sphere of domination of capital: growing economic importance of the big and decline of the small enterprises—1. III. Capitalist relations weigh more and more heavily on the working class: occasioning a relative reduction in demand simultaneously with an increase in supply—4. IV. Reduction in the price of labour-power. Growing social inequality—3.

* The figures in the MS. are in blue pencil and apparently indicate a desirable rearrangement of the test.—Ed. 40 V. I. LENIN

& consequently (capitalism causes??) the growth of social inequality, the growing gulf between the propertied and the propertyless (? & ?) V. Crises—5. VI. Growing discontent of the working class, sharpening struggle & growing realisation of the need for social revolution, i.e. (explanation of it)—6. VII. Social revolution in the interests of all oppressed mankind—7 . VIII. In order to substitute socialist for commodity production the proletariat must have command of political power—dictatorship of the proletariat—8. IX. The working-class movement has become international—10. X. Russian Social-Democracy is part of international Social-Democracy—11. XI. Russian Social-Democracy pursues the same ultimate

aim. The task of Russian Social-Democracy is to

Q expose the irreconcilable character of the interests

M explain the importance of the social revolution —9.

P P organise the workers’ forces XII. The immediate aim is modified by the remnants of the serf-owning system (a burden on the entire working population & the main obstacle hindering the working- class movement). XIII. It is necessary to work for juridical institutions constituting a complement to capitalism. XIV. Autocracy—a remnant of the serf-owning system, the bitterest enemy; hence the immediate task is to overthrow the monarchy.

AMENDMENTS TO PLEKHANOV’S DRAFT PROGRAMME Proposed 21.1.02 III. [The capitalist III. Technical pro- production relations gress (by increasing the weigh more and more productivity of labour?) “allows” heavily on the working not only gives the capi- class, as] technical pro- talists the material pos- MATERIAL FOR WORKING OUT THE R.S.D.L.P. PROGRAMME 41 gress, [by increasing sibility of intensifying the productivity of la- their exploitation of the bour,] not only, etc. workers, but converts {instead of occasion- this possibility into rea- ing—engendering} lity, engendering a rela- & The growth of tive reduction in the unemployment, pover- demand for labour-power ty, degradation and simultaneously with a oppression is the ine- relative and absolute vitable result of this increase in its supply. basic tendency of capi- The growth of unemploy- talism. ment, poverty, oppression and degradation is the inevitable result of (of the this basic tendency of said basic capitalism. tendencies)

Make §5. IV. Thus, the development of the pro-

] ] ] ] ] ] ]

_ ]

ductive forces of social labour is attended

] Incorrect: ]

by the monopolisation of all the advantages

] not all. _

]

] ] ] of this development by a negligible minority, with the growth of social wealth proceeding side by side with the growth of social inequality, with the gulf between the propertied and the propertyless, between the class of property-owners and the class of the proletariat, growing. Make §4. V.* An even greater worsening of the condition of the working class and the petty producers is engendered by the industrial crises, which are the inevitable outcome of the said contradictions of capitalism, in the absence of owing to the lack With such a social control over of balanced devel- state of affairs in production and opment of pro- society, in the ab- owing to the con- duction, and the sence of balanced stantly growing growth of rivalry development of pro-

* “An even greater sharpening of these contradictions” is crossed out as an opening phrase in the MS.—Ed. 42 V. I. LENIN rivalry among the among the capital- duction, with the capitalist countries ist countries on constantly growing on the world mar- the world market. rivalry among the ket.* The poverty and capitalist coun- destitution of the tries on the world masses are accom- market, the sale of panied by a waste commodities nec- of social wealth essarily lags be- because markets hind their produc- are not to be found tion.* for the commodities produced.

Written not later than January 8 (21), 1902 First published in 1924 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany II the original

3 RECORD OF POINTS ONE AND TWO OF PLEKHANOV’S FIRST DRAFT PROGRAMME, AND OUTLINE OF POINT ONE OF THE PROGRAMME’S THEORETICAL SECTION

I. The capitalist mode of production is the economic foundation of contemporary bourgeois society, under which the most important part of the means of production and circulation of products, made in the form of commodities, is the private property of a relatively small class of persons, whereas the majority of the population cannot subsist except by selling their labour-power. In consequence of this, they find themselves in the dependent condition of wage-workers (proletarians) by their labour creating the income of the owners of the means of production and the circulation of commodities (capitalists and big landowners). II. The sphere of domination of the capitalist mode of production is expanding, as the continuous technical progress increases the economic importance of the big enterprises and thereby decreases the role of independent small producers in the economic life of society, depressing their living standard, displacing some into the ranks of the proletariat, and turning others into direct or indirect vassals and tributaries of capital. * * * * This variant is crossed out in the MS.—Ed. MATERIAL FOR WORKING OUT THE R.S.D.L.P. PROGRAMME 43

I (?). Russia’s economic development is leading to an ever greater spread and ever greater domination within ? her of capitalist relations of production.

Written not later than January 8 (21), 1902 First published in 1959 Printed from in Vol. 6 of the Fifth Russian edi- the original tion of the Collected Works

4 INITIAL VARIANT OF THE THEORETICAL SECTION OF THE DRAFT PROGRAMME

INITIAL FORMULATION AMENDED FORMULATION A. I. Russia’s economic I. Russia’s intensified development and her involvement in inter- increasing (intensified) national trade and the involvement in interna- growth of commodity pro- tional trade are leading duction inside the country to an ever greater spread {Reword} are leading to ever fuller within her and to ever domination within her of fuller domination of the the capitalist mode of capitalist mode of pro- production, which is dis- duction. tinguished by the following basic features. II.* Continuous technical III. Continuous technical progress is increasing the progress is increasing the economic importance of the number, size and economic big enterprises and reducing importance of the big capi- the role of the independent talist enterprises, and is de- small producers (peasants, pressing the living standard artisans, handicraftsmen, et of the independent small al.) in the country’s econo- producers (peasants, artisans, mic life, depressing their handicraftsmen), turning living standard, turning some of them into vassals and some of them into direct or tributaries of capital, totally indirect vassal and tribu- ruining others and displac-

* In the original §II and §III are transposed in blue pencil.—Ed. 44 V. I. LENIN taries of capital, and dis- ing them into the ranks of placing others into the ranks the propertyless class (the of the propertyless class (the proletariat), which is de- proletariat), which is deprived of the means of pro- prived of the means of produc- duction. tion. III. The most important part of the means of production and the circulation of commodities is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a relatively small class of persons, whereas an ever growing majority of the population are unable to maintain their existence otherwise than by selling their labour-power. In consequence of this, they find themselves in the dependent condition of wage-workers (proletarians), who by their labour create the income of the owners of the means of production and the circulation of commodities (capitalists and big landowners). IV. By increasing the productivity of labour, technical progress enables the capitalists to intensify their exploitation of the workers, engendering a relative reduction in the demand for labour-power (that is, the increase in demand is not proportional to [lags behind] the increase in capital) simultaneously with a relative and absolute increase in its supply. This, together with the above-mentioned basic tendencies of capitalism, leads to a growth of unemployment, poverty exploitation, oppression and degradation. V. The condition of the working class and the small producers is even further worsened by the industrial crises, which are the inevitable outcome of the said contradictions of capitalism, by the lack of balanced development of production, which is intrinsic to it (and which no associations of industrialists can eliminate), and by the growth of rivalry among the capitalist countries on the world market. Poverty and destitution of the masses exist side by side with a waste of social wealth in consequence of the impossibility of finding markets for the commodities produced. VI. Thus, the devel- VI. Thus, the gigantic opment of the produc- development of the pro- tive forces of social {Reword} ductive forces of social and labour is attended increasingly socialised labour is attended MATERIAL FOR WORKING OUT THE R.S.D.L.P. PROGRAMME 45 by the monopolisation of all the principal advantages of this development by a negligible minority of the population, with the growth of social wealth proceeding side by side with the growth of social inequality, with the gulf between the propertied and propertyless, between the class of property-owners (the bourgeoisie) and the class of the proletariat, growing. VII. But as all these inevitable contradictions of capitalism increase and develop, the discontent and indigna- the number and the solidari- tion of the working class ty of the proletarians, their also grow, and its solidari- discontent and indignation ty increases, in virtue of grow, the very conditions of the capitalist mode of production, the struggle between the working class and the capitalist class becomes sharper and the urge to throw off the intolerable yoke of capitalism mounts. VIII. The emancipation VIII. The emancipation of of the workers must be an the workers must be an act act of the working class of the working class itself, itself. If the yoke of capi- because all the other classes talism is to be thrown off, of present-day society stand there must be a social rev- for the preservation of the olution, that is, foundations of the existing economic system. The real emancipation of the working class requires a social revolution, naturally flowing from the entire development of the capitalist mode of production, that is, the abolition of private ownership of the means of production, their conversion into public property and the replacement of the capitalist production of commodities by the socialist organisation of the production of commodities by society as a whole, with the object of ensuring full well-being and free all-round development for all its members. IX. To effect this social revolution the proletariat must 46 V. I. LENIN win political power, which will make it master of the situation and enable it to remove all obstacles along the road to its great goal. In this sense the dictatorship of the proletariat is an essential political condition of the social revolution. X. The revolution of the proletariat will mean the emancipation of all the now oppressed and suffering mankind, because it will put an end to all types of oppression and exploitation of man by man. XI. Russian Social-Democracy undertakes the task of disclosing to the workers the irreconcilable antagonism between their interests and those of the capitalists, of explaining to the proletariat the historical significance, nature and prerequisites of the social revolution it will have to carry out, and of organising a revolutionary class party capable of directing the struggle of the proletariat in all its forms against the present social and political system. XII. But the development of international exchange and of production for the world market has established (created) such close ties among all the nations of the civilised (?) world, that the great aim of the proletariat’s emancipation struggle can be achieved only through the joint efforts of proletarians in all countries. That is why* the present-day working-class movement had to become, and has long since become, an international movement, and Russian Social- Democracy regards itself as one of the detachments of the world army of the proletariat, as part of international So- cial-Democracy.

B. I. The immediate aims of Russian Social-Democracy are, however, considerably modified by the fact that in our country numerous remnants of the pre-capitalist, serf- owning, social system retard the development of the productive forces in the highest degree, and lower the working population’s standard of living; they are responsible for the Asiatically barbarous way in which the many-million- strong peasantry is dying out, and keep the entire people

* The words “the great aim of the proletariat’s emancipation struggle can be achieved only through the joint efforts of proletarians in all countries. That is why” are crossed out in the MS.—Ed. MATERIAL FOR WORKING OUT THE R.S.D.L.P. PROGRAMME 47 in a state of ignorance and subjection, denying them all rights. The Russian Social-Democrats still have to work for the free civic and political institutions which already exist in the leading capitalist countries and which are undoubtedly necessary for the full and all-round development of the proletariat’s class struggle against the bourgeoisie.* II. The most outstanding The tsarist autocracy is of these remnants of the the most outstanding of these serf-owning system and the remnants of the serf-owning most formidable bulwark of system and the most formi- all that barbarism and all dable bulwark of all this the calamities of which the barbarism. It is the bitterest politically free countries are and most dangerous enemy already rid, is the tsarist of the proletarian emancipa- autocracy; it is the bitterest tion movement and the cul- and most dangerous enemy tural development of the of the proletarian emanci- entire people. pation movement. For these reasons Russian Social-Democracy advances as its immediate political task the overthrow of the tsarist autocracy and its replacement by a republic based on a democratic constitution that would ensure: 1) the people’s sovereignty, that is....

Written between January 8 and 25 (January 21 and February 7), 1902 First published in 1924 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany II the original

5 OUTLINES OF PLAN OF THE DRAFT PROGRAMME I-VI. A) Russia’s economic development and the principal features of capitalism. VII-XII. B) The proletariat’s class struggle and the tasks of the Social-Democrats. C) The immediate aims of the Russian Social- Democrats and their political demands. D) Social (factory) reforms.

* This sentence is crossed out in the MS.—Ed. 48 V. I. LENIN

E) Financial reform and demands with a view to eliminating the survivals of the serf society. F) Conclusion (“tailpiece”). A) Russia’s economic development and the general tasks of the Social-Democrats. B) The special political tasks and political demands of the Social-Democrats. C) Social reforms. D) Financial and peasant transformations (reforms). Written between January 8 and 25 (January 21 and February 7), 1902 First published in 1924 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany II the original

6 INITIAL VARIANT OF THE AGRARIAN SECTION AND THE CONCLUDING SECTION OF THE DRAFT PROGRAMME Besides, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party demands: a) in the interests of organising the state economy on democratic lines—abolition of all indirect taxes and establishment of a progressive income-tax b) in the interests of eradicating all the remnants of the old serf-owning system 1) abolition of land redemption and quit-rent payments as well as of all services now imposed on the peasantry as a taxable social-estate 2) annulment of collective liability and of all laws restricting the peasant in the free disposal of his land; 3) restitution to the people of all amounts taken from them in the form of land redemption and quit-rent payments, confiscation for this purpose of monasterial property and of the royal demesnes,15 and imposition of a special land tax on members of the big landed nobility who received land redemption loans, the revenue thus obtained to be credited to a special public fund for the cultural and charitable needs of the village communes; 4) establishment of peasant committees MATERIAL FOR WORKING OUT THE R.S.D.L.P. PROGRAMME 49

a) for the restitution to the village communes (by expropriation or, when the land has changed hands, by redemption, etc.) of the land cut off from the peasants when serfdom was abolished and now used by the landlords as a means of keeping the peasants in bondage; b) for the eradication of the remnants of the serf-owning system which still exist in the Urals, the Altai, the Western territory and other regions of the country; 5) empowering of the courts to reduce exorbitant rents and declare null and void contracts entailing bondage. The Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party believes that the complete, consistent and lasting implementation of the indicated political and social changes can be achieved only by overthrowing the autocracy and convoking a constituent assembly, freely elected by the whole people. Written not later than January 25 (February 7), 1902 First published in 1959 Printed from in Vol. 6 of the Fifth Russian the original edition of the Collected Works 7 OUTLINES OF THE DRAFT PROGRAMME

VARIANT 1 Commodity production is ever more rapidly developing in Russia, her participation in international trade is increasing* and the capitalist mode of production is becoming increasingly dominant. A growing majority of the population are unable to maintain their existence otherwise than by selling their labour- power. In consequence of this they find themselves in the condition of wage-workers (proletarians) dependent on a relatively small class of capitalists and big landowners, who hold the most important part of the means of production and circulation of commodities.**

* The words “her participation in international trade is increasing” are crossed out in the MS.—Ed. ** This paragraph is crossed out in the MS.—Ed. 50 V. I. LENIN

The most important part of the means of production is becoming concentrated in the hands of an insignificant minority of capitalists and big landowners as their private property. Ever greater numbers of working men losing their means of production are forced to resort to the sale of their labour-power. In this way they find themselves in the dependent condition of wage-workers (proletarians), who by their labour create the income of the property-owners. The development of capitalism is increasing the number, size and economic importance of the big enterprises, and is depressing the living standard of the independent small producers (peasants, artisans, handicraftsmen), turning some of them into vassals and tributaries of capital and displacing others into the ranks of the proletariat. The higher the level of technical progress, the more the growth of the demand for labour-power lags behind the growth of its supply, and the greater are the opportunities for the capitalists to intensify exploitation of the workers. The growth of poverty, Insecurity of existence, un- unemployment, exploitation, employment, the yoke of ex- oppression and humiliation ploitation and humiliation of is the result of the basic every kind are becoming the tendencies of capitalism. lot of ever wider sections of the working population. This process is still more aggravated by industrial crises, which are the inevitable outcome of the said contradictions of capitalism. Poverty and destitution of the masses exist side by side with a waste of social wealth in consequence of the impossibility of finding markets for the commodities produced. Thus, the gigantic development of the productive forces of social and increasingly socialised labour is attended by monopolisation of all the principal advantages of this development by a negligible minority of the population. The growth of social wealth proceeds side by side with the growth of social inequality; the gulf between the class of property- owners (the bourgeoisie) and the class of the proletariat is growing. (A) §III. Small-scale production is being ousted to an ever greater degree by large-scale production. The independent small producers (peasants, artisans and handicraftsmen) MATERIAL FOR WORKING OUT THE R.S.D.L.P. PROGRAMME 51 are being turned either into proletarians or vassals and tributaries of capital. As the result of continuous technical progress small-scale production is being ousted to an ever greater degree by large-scale production. The most important part of the means of production (of the land and factories, tools and machinery, railways and other means of communication) is becoming concentrated in the hands of a relatively insignificant number of capitalists and big landowners as their private property. The independent small producers (peasants, artisans and handicraftsmen) are being ruined in growing numbers, losing their means of production and thus turning into proletarians or else becoming servants and tributaries of capital. Increasing numbers of working people are compelled to sell their labour-power. In this way they become These wage-workers (pro- wage-workers who are de- letarians) thus find themsel- pendent on the property- ves in a condition of depen- owners and by their labour dence on the property-owners, create the wealth of the and by their labour create latter. the income of the latter.

VARIANT 2 Commodity production is ever more rapidly developing in Russia, the capitalist mode of production becoming increasingly dominant. The most important part of the means of production (of the land and factories, tools and machinery, railways and other means of communication) is becoming concentrated in the hands of a relatively insignificant number of capitalists and big landowners as their private property. Increasing numbers of Increasing numbers of working people losing their working people are compel- means of production are led to sell their labour-power compelled to sell their and become wage-workers labour power. These wage- who are dependent on the workers (proletarians) thus property-owners, and by their find themselves in a condi- labour create the wealth of tion of dependence on the the latter. 52 V. I. LENIN property-owners, and by their labour create the income of the latter. The development of capitalism is increasing the number, size and economic importance of the big enterprises, is worsening the condition of the independent small producers (peasants, artisans, handicraftsmen), turning some of them into vassals and tributaries of capital, and displacing others into the ranks of the proletariat. The higher the level of technical progress, the more the growth of the demand for labour-power lags behind the growth of its supply, and the greater are the opportunities for the capitalistsFROM to intensify MARX exploitation of the workers. Insecurity of existence and unemployment, the yoke of exploitation, and humiliationTO MAO of every kind are becoming the lot of ever wider sections of the working population. This process is being still more aggravated by industrial crises, which are the inevitable outcome of the basic contradictions of capitalism. Poverty and destitution of the masses exist side by side with a waste of social wealth in consequence of the impossibility of finding markets for the commodities produced. Thus, the gigantic development of the productive forces of social and increasinglyNOT socialised FOR labour is attended by monopolisation of all the principal advantages of this development by a negligible minority of the population. The growth of COMMERCIALsocial wealth proceeds side by side with the growth of social inequality; the gulf between the class of property-ownersDISTRIBUTION (the bourgeoisie) and the class of the proletariat is growing.*

Written between January 25 and February 18 (February 7 and March 3 ), 1902 First published in 1924 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany II the original * On the back of the original is the following pencilled note: “...emphatically rejecting all those reformist plans which are connected with any extension or consolidation of tutelage of the working masses by the police and officials.” This formulation was proposed by Lenin as an amendment to the concluding part of the Draft Prog- ramme of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (see present edition, Vol. 6, p. 31).—Ed. REPLIES TO PLEKHANOV’S AND AXELRODS’S REMARKS 53

8 ADDENDA TO THE AGRARIAN AND FACTORY SECTIONS OF THE DRAFT PROGRAMME

“But with a view to eradicating the remnants of the old serf-owning system it will work for.” Perhaps we should insert “and in the interests of free development of the class struggle in the countryside”. This is prompted by the fact that at this point, too, we must resolutely draw a line between ourselves and bourgeois democracy, whose every shade will, of course, willingly subscribe to the former motivation alone. * * * NB: add to the factory section: that the law should establish weekly payments for workers under all manner of labour contracts.

Written between January 25 and February 18 (February 7 and March 3), 1902 First published in 1959Printed from in Vol. 6 of the Fifth Russianthe original edition of the Collected Works

REPLIES TO PLEKHANOV’S AND AXELROD’S REMARKS ON THE ARTICLE “THE AGRARIAN PROGRAMME OF RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY”16

“4. establishment of peasant committees: a) for the restitution to the village communes (by expropriation or, when the land has changed hands, by redemption, etc.) of the land cut off from the peasants when serfdom was abolished and now used by the landlords as a means of keeping the peasants in bondage....”*

* See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 110.—Ed. 54 V. I. LENIN

Plekhanov. NB. Please No. 1. Once you have note this: expropriation (No. 3) “lands” in the programme it does not rule out redemption; redemption does not rule out is bad grammar to say “land” expropriation (proof superfluous); in brackets. “redemption, etc.” (No. 2) is No. 2. “etc.” includes nothing but redemption—“etc.” should be deleted. The words in exchange of lands, and servi- brackets could be replaced by tude for land, and redemarca- these (by redemption, if after tion, etc. It would therefore 1861 the land [and not lands] be quite wrong to delete it. (No. 1) has changed hands by sale). This will make it clear No. 3. “Expropriation” nor- that in other cases restitution mally implies deprivation of shall take place without compen- property, that is, taking sation for the present owners. away without compensation. Where the land has changed hands by inheritance, or dona- So it is not all that strange tion, or exchange, there should to contrast it with redemp- be no redemption. I think we tion as it may appear to the shall have time to alter this. author of the remarks. Axelrod. I agree. P. A. “It is our duty to fight against all remnants of serf-owning relationships—that is beyond doubt to a Social-Demo- crat—and since these relationships are most intricately interwoven with bourgeois relationships, we are obliged to penetrate into the very core, if I may use the word, of this confusion, undeterred by the complexity of the task.”* Plekhanov. There is no need to ask for permission to ? ? obtain knowledge of the core. “...the workers’ section contains demands directed against the bourgeoisie, whereas the peasants’ section contains demands directed against the serf-owning landlords (against the feudal lords, I would say, if the applicability of this term to our landed nobility were not so disputable1)). 1) Personally I am inclined to decide this question in the affirmative, but in the given instance, it is of course neither the place nor the time for substantiating or even for proposing this solution, since what we are concerned with now is defence of the draft agrarian programme prepared collectively by the entire Editorial Board.”**

* See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 114.—Ed. ** Ibid., p. 116.—Ed. REPLIES TO PLEKHANOV’S AND AXELRODS’S REMARKS 55

Axelrod. NB. I do think that such hints at differences could be waived in a programme pamphlet. “However, to try to determine in advance, before the final outcome of the struggle, in the course of that struggle, that we shall perhaps fail to achieve the entire maximum, means lapsing into sheer philistinism.”* Plekhanov. “Try to de- A bit of tact would suggest termine” that we shall fail to achieve the entire maximum, to the author of the remarks etc.—that is very ineptly phrased. that it is highly improper to I propose to substitute for insist on a vote of the it the phrase I wrote in the text. stylistic changes he I request a vote on this proposal. Motive: fear of gibes from oppo- proposes (perhaps for the nents. worse?). It is equally ridicu- I also propose a vote on my lous to fear that over the proposal to delete the author’s minor question of “feudal- considerations about Russian feudalism. Motive: such reasoning ism” (the Martynovs?) will is irrelevant in a general, you raise a cry about a “difference might say, editorial, article. of opinion”. My statement The author’s reservations merely was a very general one. suggest a difference of opinion on the Editorial Board. Axelrod. I already spoke out in this vein above. “‘Our movement’ is the Social-Democratic labour movement. The peasant masses cannot just be ‘brought’ into it: that is not problematic, but impossible, and there was never any question of it. However, the peasant masses cannot but be brought into the ‘movement’ against all the remnants of the serf-owning system (including the autocracy).”*** Plekhanov. I propose that See 28 reverse.**** instead of the words: “peasant masses (in the phrase about bringing in”) we write: the * See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 118.—Ed. ** Plekhanov proposed the following rewording: “However, to stop ourselves before the final outcome of the struggle, in the course of that struggle, on the strength of the consideration....”—Ed. *** See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 118.—Ed. **** See preceding reply to Plekhanov’s remark.—Ed. 56 V. I. LENIN peasant mass as such, i.e., as an estate, and, moreover, regarded as a single whole, etc. I request a vote on this. Axelrod. I agree. P. A.

“We must spread the idea far and wide that only in a republic can the decisive battle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie take place; we must create and consolidate republican traditions among all the Russian revolutionaries and among the broadest possible masses of Russian workers; we should express through this “republic” slogan that we will carry to the end the struggle to democratise the state system, without looking back.”* Plekhanov. I advise the The example of Britain delation of the words: we must spread the idea that only is not very apt because of in a republic can the decisive her exceptional position. To battle between the proletariat compare Russia with Britain and the bourgeoisie take place just now is to sow great (I request a vote on this). I am not at all sure that in Britain, confusion among the public. say political development must The “necessity” of a repub- go through a republic. The mon- lic is indicated by the archy there will hardly be a hind- remarks of Marx (1875) and rance to the workers, so that its removal may turn out to be a Engels (1891) concerning the result instead of a preliminary demand for a republic in condition of the triumph of social- Germany17—but there can ism. always be exceptions. Axelrod. In favour of the proposal. P. A. “Hence, for the sake of simplicity, the entire content of Clause 4 may be briefly expressed as ‘restitution of the cut-off lands’. The question arises: how did the idea of this demand originate? It arose as the direct outcome of the general and fundamental proposition that we must assist the peasants and urge them to destroy all remnants of the serf-owning system as completely as possible. This meets with ‘general approval’, doesn’t it? Well then, if you do agree to follow this road, make an effort to proceed along it independently; don’t make it necessary to drag you; don’t let the ‘unusual’ appearance of this road frighten you;

* See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 120.—Ed. REPLIES TO PLEKHANOV’S AND AXELRODS’S REMARKS 57 don’t be put out by the fact that in many places you will find no beaten track at all, and that you will have to crawl along the edge of precipices, break your way through thickets, and leap across chasms. Don’t complain of the poor road: these complaints will be futile whining, for you should have known in advance that you would be moving, not along a highway that has been graded and levelled by all the forces of social progress, but along paths, through out-of- the-way places and back-alleys which do have a way out, but from which you, we or anyone else will never find a direct, simple, and easy way out—‘never’, i.e., whilst these disappearing, but so slowly disappearing, out-of-the- way places and back-alleys continue to exist. “But if you do not want to stray into these back-alleys, then say so frankly and don’t try to get away by phrase- mongering.”* Plekhanov. I put to the I put to the vote the vote the question of crossing out question of whether it is this page. It lends a somewhat feuilleton character to the reason- proper to use such cancan- ing, which in itself is clear toned remarks in respect of and consistent. In order to put a colleague. And where is forward the demand for restitution of the cut-off lands, there it going to get us if we all is no need “to crawl along the start cudgelling each other edge of precipices”, etc. This in that way?? imagery suggests that the author himself has not quite tied in the “cut-off lands” with his own orthodoxy. Axelrod. I propose we leave out this page, starting from the words: “This meets...” to the end of the following page (47). P. A. “Direct survivals of the corvée system, recorded times without number in all the economic surveys of Russia, are maintained, not by any special law which protects them, but by the actually existing land relationships. This is so to such an extent that witnesses testifying before the well- known Valuyev Commission18 openly stated that serf- ownership would undoubtedly have been revived had it not

*See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 127.—Ed. 58 V. I. LENIN been directly prohibited by law. Hence, one of two things: either you refrain altogether from touching upon the land relationships between the peasants and the landlords—in which case all the remaining questions are solved very ‘simply’, but then you will also be ignoring the main source of all the survivals of the serf-owning economy in the countryside, and will ‘simply’ be avoiding a burning question bearing on the most vital interests of the feudal landlords and the enslaved peasantry, a question which tomorrow or the day after may easily become one of the most pressing social and political issues in Russia. Or else you want also to touch upon the source of the ‘obsolete forms of economic bondage’ represented by the land relationships—in which case you must reckon with the fact that these relationships are so complex and entangled that they do not actually permit of any easy or simple solution. Then, if you are not satisfied with the concrete solution we have proposed for this complex question, you no longer have the right to get away with a general ‘complaint’ about its complexity, but must attempt to cope with it independently, and propose some other concrete solution. “The importance of the cut-off lands in present-day peasant farming is a question of reality.”* Plekhanov. I would advise The reasoning about sim- throwing out all the reasoning plicity, as a summing up of about “simplicity” and “non- simplicity”, and continuing the the foregoing (and as a reply article with the words: “The im- to a host of remarks made by portance of the cut-off lands....” those even who sympathise The article will gain therefrom, because this whole passage with us), is not at all super- spoils it by being terribly (??) fluous, and I suggest we leave it in. dragged out. I propose a vote. “Labour rent makes for stagnation in cultivation techniques and for stagnation in all social and economic relationships in the countryside, since this labour rent hampers the development of a money economy and the differentiation of the peasantry, disembarrasses the landlord (comparatively) of the stimulus of competition (instead of raising the technical level, he reduces the share of the sharecropper; incidental-

* See present edition, Vol. 6, pp. 128.—Ed. REPLIES TO PLEKHANOV’S AND AXELRODS’S REMARKS 59 ly, this reduction has been recorded in a number of localities for many years of the post-Reform period), ties the peasant to the land, thereby checking the progress of migration, outside employment, etc.”* Plekhanov. I propose to delete the words: “and the differentiation of the peasantry”; they could bias the reader against How? Whom> Why?—this a measure which in itself merits baffles all understanding. every approval. If you insist on leaving these words in, elaborate on them, explaining (even if only in a footnote) what you mean by them. I request a vote. Furthermore: what means It’s quite plain. It means: “comparatively disembarrasses”? The word “comparatively” does it disembarrasses relative to not fit in here. the current state in Russia (and not as compared with, say, America). “And in general: once it is generally acknowledged that the cut-off lands are one of the principal roots of the labour- rent system—and this system is a direct survival of serf- ownership which retards the development of capitalism— how can one doubt that the restitution of the cut-off lands will undermine the labour-rent system and accelerate social and economic progress?”** Plekhanov. That is just A hasty conclusion. See why there is no need to go to end of this (55) and begin- such lengths to prove this. ning of the next page.*** “As far as I can judge, all objections ‘against the cut-off lands’ fit into one or another of these four groups; moreover, most of the objectors (including Martynov) have answered all four questions in the negative, considering the demand for the restitution of the cut-off lands wrong in principle, politically inexpedient, practically unattainable, and logi- cally inconsistent.”**** * See present edition, Vol. 6, pp. 129-30.—Ed. ** Ibid., p. 130.—Ed. *** Lenin means the beginning of Chapter VII of his article (ibid., p. 130).—Ed. **** Ibid., p. 131.—Ed. 60 V. I. LENIN Plekhanov. I propose See p. 28 reverse.** that Martynov should be deleted: there’s much too much of Martynov has cited argu- him stuck in all over the place. ments reiterated by very Axelrod. Indeed, des Gu- ten, i.e., Martynov, mehr als many of our friends. It zu viel.* P. A. would be highly tactless to let these arguments go, without replying to them, and to refrain from mentioning Martynov, when he speaks to the point. “And we shall not be in the least contradicting ourselves if we delete from our programme the struggle against the remnants of the serf-owning system in the subsequent historical period when the special features of the present social and political ‘juncture’ will have disappeared, when the peasants, let us suppose, will have been satisfied by insignificant concessions made to an insignificant number of property-owners and begin definitely to ‘snarl’ at the proletariat. Then, we shall probably also have to delete from our programme the struggle against the autocracy, for it is quite inconceivable that the peasants will succeed in ridding themselves of the most repulsive and grievous form of feudal oppression before political liberty has been attained.”*** Plekhanov. I propose we These words should stand, throw out the part starting with the words: “And we shall not for they arise out of a be...” and ending with: “...has necessary precaution. Other- been attained.” Instead of rein- wise, we could later be very forcing, they weaken the conviction carried by the foregoing. well accused of lack of Axelrod. In favour. P. A. foresight. “It may be argued: ‘However slowly the labour-rent farming may be yielding to the pressure of capitalism, still it is yielding; it is, moreover, doomed to disappear completely; large-scale labour-rent farming is giving way to, and

* Too much of a good thing.—Ed. ** A reference to Lenin’s reply to Plekhanov’s remark on p. 55 of this volume.—Ed. *** See present edition, Vol. 6, pp. 132-33.—Ed. REPLIES TO PLEKHANOV’S AND AXELRODS’S REMARKS 61 will be directly replaced by, large-scale capitalist farming. What you want is to accelerate the elimination of serf- owning by a measure which in essence amounts to the splitting-up (partial, but nevertheless splitting-up) of large-scale farms. Are you not thereby sacrificing the interests of the future to the interests of the present? For the sake of the problematic possibility of a peasant revolt against serf-owning in the immediate future, you are placing obstacles in the way of a revolt of the agricultural proletariat against capitalism in the more or less distant future!’ “This argument, however convincing it may seem at first glance, is very one-sided....”* Plekhanov. It’s pretty I think it is ridiculous unconvincing even at first glance. to see this as a “compliment It reeks of such wild pedantry, that the least said of it the bet- to our opponents”, when they ter: I blush for the Social- are being refuted (this is Democrats. This sense of shame even actually wrong, because is the stronger now that thousands of Russian peasants are rising the argument was repeated up to liquidate the old order. in their letters by Iskra’s I request a vote on the proposal closest friends). Besides, to declare this argument uncon- there’s no point at all in vincing even at first glance. Axelrod. I believe we the abuse heaped on them by should throw out the compliment the author of the remarks. to our opponents à la Martynov. P. A. “...this could not fail to exert the profoundest influence on the spirit of protest and the independent struggle of the entire rural working population”.** Plekhanov. What does See Belgium in April “independent struggle” mean? 1902.19 She provides the answer to this “difficult” question. “And in order to facilitate for our farm labourers and semi-farm labourers the subsequent transition to socialism, it is highly important that the socialist party begin to ‘stand up’ at once for the small peasants, and do ‘everything possible’ for them, never refusing a hand in solving the * See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 133.—Ed. ** Ibid., p. 134.—Ed. 62 V. I. LENIN urgent and complex ‘alien’ (non-proletarian) problems, and helping the working and exploited masses to regard the socialist party as their leader and representative.”* Plekhanov. Why are the Is it so hard to understand words “everything possible” in that everyone has his own inverted commas (“quotes”)? I don’t understand. Besides, the way of using quotes? Perhaps question of “semi-farm labour- the author of the remarks ers” is not at all an alien one will want to “vote” on the for the proletariat. It is now extremely bad policy to use this quotes as well? I shouldn’t word, even in quotes. be at all surprised! “It is the Russian bourgeoisie who were ‘late’ with what is really their task of sweeping away all the remnants of the old regime, and we must and shall rectify this omission until it has been rectified, until we have won political liberty, as long as the position of the peasants continues to foster dissatisfaction among practically the whole of educated bourgeois society (as is the case in Russia), instead of fostering a feeling of conservative self-satisfaction among it on account of the ‘indestructibility’ of what is supposed to be the strongest bulwark against socialism (as is the case in the West where this self-satisfaction is displayed by all the parties of Order, ranging from the agrarians and conservatives pur sang, through the liberal and free-thinking bourgeois, to even as far—without offence to Messrs. the Chernovs and the Vestnik Russkoi Revolutsii! 20—to even as far as the fashionable ‘critics of Marxism’ in the agrarian question).”** Plekhanov. I strongly I agree, but I prefer to advise that we throw out here throw out “the Chernovs”. the words “Vestnik Russkoi Re- volutsii”. They stand alongside Chernov’s name, and we could be accused of carelessly bringing the two together, giving a hint, and almost divulging a pseudonym. This should be avoided at all costs. “Nationalisation of the land is a different matter. This demand (if it is interpreted in the bourgeois sense, and not * See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 134.—Ed. ** Ibid., pp. 135-36.—Ed. REPLIES TO PLEKHANOV’S AND AXELRODS’S REMARKS 63 in the socialist) does actually ‘go further’ than the demand for the restitution of the cut-off lands, and in principle we fully endorse it. It goes without saying that, when the revolutionary moment comes, we shall not fail to advance it.”* Plekhanov. I quite ad- It’s a pity the “adherent” here to this remark.21 That’s the quite forgot that the remark “crux” of the matter. Axelrod. I don’t quite related to the unedited ar- understand. Above you gave an ticle. Just a little attention excellent definition of the social- would have spared him this revolutionary character of the agrarian programme; besides amusing mistake. nationalisation of the land is now anti-revolutionary even as a slogan for an uprising. I agree with Berg’s proposal.

“But our present programme is being drawn up, not only for the period of revolutionary insurrection, not even so much for that period, as for the period of political slavery, for the period that precedes political liberty. However, in this period the demand for the nationalisation of the land is much less expressive of the immediate tasks of the democratic movement in the meaning of a struggle against the serf-owning system.”** Plekhanov. The point made above was that our agrarian programme is a social-revolutionary one. Nationalisation of the land in a police state would mean a fresh and vast increase of that state. That is why it is not right to say, as the author says here, “much less expressive”, etc. One measure is revolutionary and This is wrong. National- the other reactionary. isation is not always “reac- Axelrod. Plekhanov’s tionary”, regardless of time proposal coincides with the meaning of Berg’s remarks, and and character. That’s an mine on the preceding page. absurdity. If the authors of the remarks refuse to take the * See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 137.—Ed. ** Ibid., pp. 137-39.—Ed. 64 V. I. LENIN

trouble to give a precise formulation to the amendments, even in a second reading (although this demand was specially accepted and communicated to all)—there will be endless delays through votes on “changes” in general (and then on the text of the changes??). It would be better to worry less about the author of a signed article expressing himself in his own manner. “That is why we think that, on the basis of the present social system, the maximum demand in our agrarian programme should not go beyond the democratic revision of the Peasant Reform. The demand for nationalisation of the land, while quite valid in principle and quite suitable at certain moments, is politically inexpedient at the present moment.”* Plekhanov. I agree with See p. 75 reverse.** Berg’s remark.22 But I propose this wording: in a police state, nationalisation of the land is harmful, and in a constitutional one it will be a part of the demand for the nationalisation of all the means of production. I request a vote. Axelrod. I agree. P. A. “Such composition of the courts would be a guarantee both of their democratic nature and free expression of the different class interests of the various sections of the rural population.”*** Plekhanov. The style A “terrible” concept of the here is terrible. I propose a vote “voting” game! It looks as if on improving it. Axelrod. How? we have nothing better to do! * See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 138.—Ed. ** A reference to Lenin’s reply to Plekhanov’s remark on p. 63 of this volume.—Ed. *** See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 140.—Ed. REPLIES TO PLEKHANOV’S AND AXELRODS’S REMARKS 65

“...it is well known that in our countryside rent is more often of a serf-owning than a bourgeois nature; it is much more “money” rent (i.e., a modified form of feudal rent) than capitalist rent (i.e., the surplus over and above the profit of the employer). Reductions of rent would therefore directly help to replace serf-owning forms of farming by capitalist forms.”* Plekhanov. The author That’s not true. If you do promised not to speak of Russian take a look above, you will feudalism (see above), but has failed to keep his promise. That’s find that the author “prom- a pity. I request a vote on the ised” nothing of the sort. proposal to delete here the word Once the author has made feudal (rent). the specific reservation that this is not a general opinion, the quibbling here is doubly tactless. “Even the autocracy has therefore been obliged more and more frequently to institute a special fund (utterly trifling, of course, and going more to line the pockets of embezzlers of state property and bureaucrats than for the relief of the famine-stricken) ‘for the cultural and charitable needs of the village communes’. We, too, cannot but demand, among other democratic reforms, that such a fund be established. That can scarcely be disputed.”** Plekhanov. This passage That even the autoc- here about the “autocracy” is racy has been obliged to go extremely inappropriate. After all, why should we look to it for in for charity (in the small- example? As if we are unable est way) is a fact, fear to make any proposals without of reference to which is looking to it for a cue? rather strange. That this is The restitution to the peasants should be motivated by it being put forward as an “example”, a revolutionary measure, recti- is a “poor invention” by a fying an “injustice” which is not man who wants to quibble. only still in everyone’s mind, but which largely served to ruin the Russian peasant (cf. Martynov). P.S. When the French émi- grés demanded their billion (at

* See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 141.—Ed. ** Ibid., p. 142.—Ed. 66 V. I. LENIN the time of the Restoration)23 they said nothing about charity. They had a better understanding of the class struggle. I propose a vote on the proposal to rewrite this passage. Axelrod. Cf. Plekhanov’s remark to p. 90.24 Read that and these remarks carefully and you will agree with them. P. A. “But, then—the objection is raised—this tribute cannot be returned in full. Quite so (just as the cut-off lands cannot be restituted in full).”* Plekhanov. Why can’t That’s absolutely wrong. the cut-off lands be restituted Lenin’s insertion in his ar- in full? The programme says nothing about it. ticle does not alter the mean- I call everyone’s attention ing of what the programme to the fact that the meaning of says, and cannot do the paragraph we adopted has so. The author of the remarks been changed here. Axelrod. Why do you has forgotten the elementary restrict and weaken a princi- truth that “it is the law, and pled decision by an insertion? not the motives of the law, that is subject to application”. “Actually, of course, the annulment of collective liability (Mr. Witte may manage to put this particular reform through before the revolution), the abolition of division into social- estates, freedom of movement, and the right for each individual peasant freely to dispose of his land will rapidly and inevitably bring about the removal of the burden of taxation and serf-bondage that the land commune to a three-fourths extent constitutes at the present time. But this result will only prove the correctness of our views on the village commune, prove how incompatible it is with the entire social and economic development of capitalism.”** Plekhanov. There is now “Therefore” has nothing to talk of its destruction. The rele- do with it. The “talk” has vant phrase should therefore be changed. been going on for quite some

* See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 143.—Ed. ** Ibid., p. 144.—Ed. REPLIES TO PLEKHANOV’S AND AXELRODS’S REMARKS 67

time, and even if it does lead to some action, still nothing need be altered there. I propose that instead of “capitalism” we say: “with all the I find this fear of “dema- social and economic development gogy” absolutely unwarrant- of our time”. Motive: this will ed, because these gentlemen spare us any “demagogic criti- will always come up with cism” by the proponents of the commune. similarly “bad criticism”. “To this we reply that it does not at all follow from our formulation that every peasant must necessarily demand that a separate plot of land be allotted to him. What does follow is only liberty to sell the land; moreover, the prefe- rential right of the commune members to purchase land that is being sold does not run counter to this liberty.”* Plekhanov. I quite agree “I agree” with what related with this remark,25 and propose that it be put to the vote. to a deleted passage??!!?? Axelrod. In favour. A very fine proposal for a “vote”, indeed! “This objection would be groundless. Our demands do not destroy the association but, on the contrary, set up in place of the archaic (de facto semi-feudal) power of the commune over the muzhik, the power of a modern association over its members who join of their own accord. Nor, in particular, is our formulation at variance with the recognition, for instance, of fellow members’ having the pre-emptive right, on certain terms, to buy the land put up for sale by a fellow member.” Plekhanov. I don’t The author of the remarks agree with this. This right would overdoes his hostility to the merely depreciate the peasant’s land. commune. On this point As for collective liability, it great care must be taken to has partially already been abol- keep out of the embrace of ished, and the rest will be abol- Messrs. A. Skvortsov & Co. ished by Mr. Witte any day now. Contradiction. I fail to under- (into which the author of stand: on the one hand, I freely the remarks falls). On cer- enter an association and freely tain terms, the right of pre- withdraw from it. On the other, emption may increase instead

* See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 145.—Ed. 68 V. I. LENIN the commune has a pre-emptive of decreasing the value of the right to buy my land. There’s a land. My expression is de- contradiction in this. liberately broader and more general, whereas the author of the remarks is in too much of a hurry to cut the Gordian knot. By carelessly “denying” the commune (as an association) we may easily spoil all our “good will” to the peasant. After all, the commune is also connected with the conventional type of settlement, and so on, and only the A. Skvortsovs “remake” this in their proj- ects with the stroke of a pen. “To clear the way for the free development of the class struggle in the countryside, it is necessary to remove all remnants of serfdom, which now overlie the beginnings of capitalist antagonisms among the rural population, and keep them from developing.”* Plekhanov. This is the The author of the remarks first time I see the word antago- should not imagine that he nism used in the plural. is past seeing anything for the first time. * * * This alone is made fully clear by the remarks of the “author of the remarks”. If he set himself the task of making it impossible for comrades who disagree with him, even on trifling matters, to work together with him on the board, he is rapidly and very surely moving towards that noble goal. But if he does reach it, he himself should bear the consequences. (1) The remarks are written in such a careless manner that no effort has even been made to compare what there was before and what there is after the corrections. * See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 146.—Ed. INTRODUCTION TO THE LEAFLET 69

(2)In fact, the list of corrections has simply been thrown out! “Don’t buck me.” (3)Hardly any of the alterations proposed by the author of the remarks has been formulated by him personally—contrary to the specified condition adopted of necessity to avoid intolerable delays. (4)The tone of the remarks is deliberately abusive. If I adopted such a tone in “analysing” Plekhanov’s article on the programme (i.e., his personal “article” and not the draft of a general statement, a general programme, etc.) that would at once be the end of our collaboration. And so I “put to the vote”: are members of the board to be allowed to provoke other members into doing so? (5)It is the summit of tactlessness to use votings to interfere in the very manner in which the members of the board express themselves. The author of the remarks puts me in mind of a coachman who thinks that to steer well, the horses have to be reined in and brought up as often and as hard as possible. Of course, I am nothing more than a horse, one of the horses of the coachman—Plekhanov—but even the most harassed horse may throw off the much too spirited coachman.

Written on May 1 (14), 1902 First published in 1925Printed from in Lenin Miscellany IIIthe original

INTRODUCTION TO THE LEAFLET OF THE DON COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. “TO THE CITIZENS OF RUSSIA”26 We give in full the splendid proclamation issued by the Don Committee of our Party. It shows that the Social- Democrats know how to appreciate the heroic behaviour of men like Balmashev, without, however, falling into the error of the Socialist-Revolutionaries.27 The Social-Demo- crats bring to the fore the workers’ (and peasants’) movement. They make their demands on the government on behalf of the working class and the whole people, but without issuing any threats of further attempts and assassinations. They 70 V. I. LENIN regard terrorism as one of the possible ancillary means, and not as a special tactical method justifying separation from revolutionary Social-Democracy.

Written after May 9 (22), 1902 First published in 1931 in V. Ples-Printed from kov’s book V gody boyevoi yunosti.the original Molodyozh nakanune pervoi revolutsii (Fighting Days of Youth. Young People on the Eve of the First Revolution), Molodaya Gvardia Publishers

INTRODUCTION TO THE LEAFLET “TO THE CITIZENS OF ALL RUSSIA”28

The leaflet of the Don Committee, which we reprint, sums up some remarkable events and gives them a highly correct and striking assessment, drawing practical conclusions which Social-Democrats will never tire of repeating. It was published in 6,500 copies and sent to various towns of Russia in December.

Written on December 20, 1902 (January 2, 1903) Published on January 1, 1903Printed from in Iskra No. 31the original

PLAN FOR A PAMPHLET AGAINST THE S.R.s29

The war is on. It is just beginning. Literary polemics. Why? Explain why war is inevitable. Special attention should be devoted to theoretical differences involving principles. A) Middle-of-the-road and unprincipled stand between revolutionary Marxism and opportunist criticism. 1. Article in No. 2 of Vestnik Russkoi Revolutsii (editorial). Its examination. 2. Theory of cataclysm. Quote pp. 55- 56=denial of the economic necessity of socialism. (Trusts forgotten.) PLAN FOR A PAMPHLET AGAINST THE S.R.s 71

3. Agrarian question. Quote p. 57 (“even”). 4. Theory of value. Quote p. 64. “Shaken”! p. 66 (“even” once again!) {pp. 67 and 48—crisis of all socialism} 5. “Violent and exceptional Marxism is becoming a part of history” (75)!! NB 6. Zhitlovsky in “Sozialistische Monatsheften”....30 7. Current Issue. Praise of Hertz (note on p. 8). “New standpoint”= through co-operation to socialism. to B. 3. 8. Vestnik Russkoi Revolutsii No. 2, pp. 82 and 87. “Amendments”, “revision”, etc.* 9. Σ = total lack of principle. Anyone who wants to, can be a Socialist-Revolutionary. 10. Complete detachment from international socialism: “distinctive character”. B) Middle-of-the-road and unprincipled stand between Russian Marxism and the Narodnaya Volya trend, rather: the liberal-Narodnik trend. 1. The new revolutionary Degeneration of the movement goes hand in hand old Russian socialism with a struggle between the into a liberal-Narodnik old theory and the new. trend. Relics of Russian socialism (liberal-Narodnik trend) and Russian Marx- ism. What is the attitude of the Socialist-Revolution- aries? The Eve of Revolu- tion is typical. (Total incomprehension of the importance of theoretical discussions.) 2. “Labour economy” (S.R theory) (from Revolutsion-

* MS. indicates that point 8 is to go before point 6.—Ed. 72 V. I. LENIN

naya Rossiya31 No. 11, p. 7). Vulgar socialism & Naro- dism. [Cf. Vestnik Russkoi Revo- lutsii No. 2, pp. 100-01: class struggle=struggle of all the oppressed!!] 3. Progressive and negative Contra: aspects of capitalism. Revo- Progressive significance lutsionnaya Rossiya No. 9, of migration and p. 4. vagabondage: No. 8, p. 8, column 232

Special sheet, bottom of p. 2

Cf. Current Issue (p. 8): From German statis- “New standpoint”: “Through tics: co-operation= co-operation to socialism”. prevalence of the bour- Cf. A 7 geoisie. 4. Σ=purely eclectic combination of Narodism and Marxism with the aid of “criticism”. C) Middle-of-the-road attitude to the class struggle and the working-class movement. 1. From the theoretical errors of their stand they pass on to practical ones. Their attitude to the class struggle and the working-class movement. What is their approach? P 2. Quotation from Vestnik Russkoi Revolutsii No. 2, N p. ??4. Party and class. Confusion, which means N only one thing: moving away from the proletariat’s M class struggle and throwing open the door to an N intelligentsia that is absolutely uncommitted and N unstable. Q 3. Intelligentsia & proletariat & peasantry (No. 8, p. 6, column 2) (against “narrow” orthodoxy). Meaning= total denial of the class struggle. Confusion of different strata. Lumping together of intelligentsia’s social reformism and a revolutionarism which is PLAN FOR A PAMPHLET AGAINST THE S.R.s 73

merely democratic—and proletarian socialism—and crude peasant demands. 4. Intelligentsia and proletariat. And the Narodnaya Volya followers as well!!! Vestnik Russkoi Revolutsii No. 3—pp. 9-11. Special sheet. 5. Their attitude in practice? Illustrated by Econom- ism.33 Iskra: long process of work, persuasion, education. Iskra’s shedding of illusions about unity. Cf.: Gloating & Putting spokes in revolutionary Marxism’s wheels. Σ = dilettante on the sidelines. 6. How they explain their distinction from the Social- Democrats? No. 9, p. 4, column 2. P The point is not that “they want to be”, but that the M working- class movement is there. Q Labour in general is an absurdity. P Failure to make a distinction between hired and N independent labour=vulgarisation of socialism by M petty-bourgeois element and total obliteration of N division from the Narodniks. “A purely ideological representative” of a principle. Q No principle at all! D) Regardless of their will, they are leading the working class towards subordination to bourgeois democracy. 1. We have examined the theoretical stand of the S.R.s and their attitude to the working-class movement. Σ = middle-of-the-road stand, eclecticism. 2. Their attitude to Russian bourgeois democracy. There is none! Vestnik Russkoi Revolutsii No. ?, Cf. “Modern Vestal p. 13?!! The S.R.s already Virgin”.34 noticed this during the war against the Economists. 3. What about Mr. Struve? What about the liberal- Narodnik trend? That’s to whom they give in!!! It means that they give in to bourgeois democracy, failing to explain to the workers the class antitheses, and failing to work out an independent socialist ideology. 74 V. I. LENIN

4. What means intelligentsia & proletariat & peasantry? In practice, the intelligentsia and the peasantry constitute nothing more than bourgeois democracy!! 5. What about their attitude to the liberals? Have another look at the & and — of capitalism formula ´ (No. 9, p. 4). There is no class under- Curious fact: they lying the liberals (No. 9, took the liberals at p. 4). their word!! There is much more of No. 9, pp. 3-4 it than you have! (V. V.’s variants) Our fight against the liberals is much more acute than yours is. We are engaged in a war and not in verbose reasoning: on the one hand, on the other hand. But we realise that the liberals represent a class, that they are resilient, and they have a social, popular movement, which the S.R.s have not!! 6. L. M. in Zarya (No. 2-3) was right: the S.R.s have a twofold name because their socialism is not at all revolutionary and their revolutionism has nothing in common with socialism. That is what leads to their defeats by bourgeois democracy. That is the end of the Warning against principled criticism of the petty-bourgeois whole S.R. stand. Let us socialism, note that we reject the revolutionarism and whole of their stand and vacillation. not merely their errors in the (agrarian) programme, not merely their errors in tactics (terrorism). E) Agrarian question. 1. Primitive vulgar so- Unreadiness of Vestnik cialism. Credulity. Russkoi Revolutsii No analysis of the against Iskra. Cur- movement. Failure to rent Issue (Hertz). understand the strug- NB Revolutsionnaya Ros- gle against the rem- siya No. 4, February, PLAN FOR A PAMPHLET AGAINST THE S.R.s 75

nants of serfdom bottom of p. 2: Polem- (No. 8, p. 4: the 1861 ics on the muzhik,1) reforms have given and No. 8 (June): scope to capitalism!!). call by the Peasant 2. The peasantry’s “equal- Union, etc. Indeed, itarian principle”, you are less prepared etc., is merely labour- than the Social-Dem- ing under a delusion ocrats! of democratic demands. There is nothing socialist in it. You must tell the truth instead of stooping to demagogy. 1) The modern countryside can support and intensify the pressure on the government “and can probably do it more vigorously than we think, cut off as we have absolutely been in most cases from the muzhik for several years now because of government spying and oppression”. Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 4 (February 1902), p. 2. 3. “Socialisation of the land.” Bourgeois nationalisation? (What about its significance in a class state?) “Socialisation of the land” is an empty promise (minimum!). After all this = de facto “the people are prepared for revolution” of the Narod- naya Volya. 4. Co-operation (instead of the class struggle!) is a purely (bourgeois-) petty-bourgeois demand. 5. For the commune. Against free disposal. 6. Narodnoye Dyelo35 No. 2, pp. 18-19. How is the peasants’ and workers’ struggle to be united? Narodnoye Dyelo No. 2, p. 51: “in the common popular spirit”. Unprintable. Narodnoye Dyelo Examples of duping: Revolu- No. 2, p. 63: tsionnaya Rossiya No. 11, p. 6: “there should be have a snack and a drink of duping wherever blood, pettifoggers and so on and whenever and so forth. possible”!! 76 V. I. LENIN

F) Terrorism. 1. Polemics over Balmashev. Unexampled. But isn’t the criticism of the Germans unexampled? First you breed dissatisfaction and then ] you yourself suggest that it should be ^ voiced!! 2. Polemics over the April 3 proclamation. Quote (No. 11, bottom of p. ?5) 36 and a fiction deduced. 3. “Vperyod” No. 5. Quote, No. 5, pp. 7-8. by the way, p. 9 37

4. Terrorism. Quote from The logic of terrorism: No. 7 (idem as in the it is brought out into the April 3 proclamation: forefront, then comes the it is not words we rest. Proof: back in Fe- attach importance to). bruary 1902 it was No. 7, p. 4: “Terrorism not a fighting organisa- induces people to think tion that Revolutsionnaya politically.” Rossiya (No. 4) brought —“surer than months out into the forefront. of propaganda” See reverse (α).* —“will instil strength into the discouraged”.38 Terrorism is not dangerous 5. “Not instead, but togeth- because there is a mass er.” In practice there movement. “Frame of is no connection with mind.” Succumb to it? the masses. See reverse (β).** Scepticism, lack of steadfastness. 4 years (1897-1901), with the democratic period just beginning. Distraction from imme- No. 1?, column 1 on p. 3 diate pressing tasks. (“theory of stages”). Ibid.: Leaders lagging behind there should be no break- the mass. ing into prisons.39

* The text marked (α) is on the reverse of the MS.—Ed. ** The text marked (β) is on the reverse of the MS.—Ed. PLAN FOR A PAMPHLET AGAINST THE S.R.s 77

(α) “All the aspects of the revolutionary technique, methods of street fighting against the troops, execution of the most hated servants of the tsar (my italics), etc., retreat into the background before P What is the most mature, most immediate and M the posi- pressing problem: the establishment of Q tion today? a central revolutionary organisation” (Revolutsionnaya Rossiya, 1902, No. 4, February, p. 3).

(β) “...While the scribes waged a paper struggle...” (whether it is right to attach merely an exciting or also a deterrent significance to terrorism) “...life brought out into the forefront such a need of terroristic means that in face of it all earlier objections had to cease. Terroristic acts became necessary as a means of self-defence...” Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 7, p. 2 (June 1902).

G) Conclusion. Tasks of contemporary revolutionaries: α) Theoretical defence and development of revolutionary Marxism. β) Utmost participation in international ideological struggle. γ) Development of Russian Marxism, its application; struggle against liberal-Narodnik trend, exposure before the working class of its bourgeois and petty- bourgeois character. δ) Organisation of the proletariat. Host of flaws. Insis- tent demands. ε) “A lot of people and a shortage of men.” Leaders must prepare the masses for an uprising.

Written in the spring of 1903 First published in 1939 in the Printed from magazine Proletarskaya the original Revolutsia No. 1 78 V. I. LENIN

THE SECOND CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P.40 JULY 1û ( 30) - AUGUST 10 ( ù3), 1903 1 PROGRAMME OF THE R.S.D.L.P. REGULAR SECOND CONGRESS41 A. Standing orders of the Congress and its constitution. B. List and priority of questions to be discussed and decidedFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF at the Congress. A. Standing Orders of the Congress. 1. The comrade duly In brackets are desir- authorised by the Organis- able addenda, explanations, ing Committee42 is to open!! advice and other remarks of the Congress. a particular character. 2. The Congress is to elect a chairman, two assistants (and deputies) of the chairman, and 9 secretaries. These 9* constitute the bureau and have their seats at the same table. Organising Committee’s report. 3. Election of a commit- (This committee is also to tee to verify delegates’ receive the Organising Com- credentials and examine any mittee’s statement concern- applications, complaints and ing the persons, as listed, protests relating to the whom it has invited to attend constitution of the Congress. the Congress with voice but no vote.)** 4. Decision on admitting the Polish Social-Demo- crats.43 to 3*** * Apparently, a slip of the pen: the total should be 12.—Ed. ** The bracketed text is crossed out in the MS.—Ed. *** Point 4, like point 11 in Section B (List and Priority of Questions) was inserted by Lenin additionally. Because of this and changes in THE SECOND CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 79

5. Order of the Congress sittings: twice a day from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. (roughly). 6. Limitation on delegates’ speeches: rapporteurs not more than 30 minutes per speech; the rest, not more than 10 minutes. No one is entitled to speak more than twice on any question. On points of order, not more than two speakers for and two against every proposal. 7. The minutes of the Con- gress are to be kept by the secretaries with the participation of the chairman or one of his assistants. Each sitting of the Congress is to start with the approval of the minutes of the preceding sitting. Every speaker is to submit to the bureau of the Congress a summary of each of his speeches within two hours after the sitting. 8. The voting on all the (To accelerate roll-call vot- questions except the elec- ing and avoid mistakes, the tion of functionaries is to bureau of the Congress should be by a show of hands give ballot papers on each On the demand of ten votes; question to every member of roll-call votes are to be the Congress with the right taken with a record of all of vote. On each ballot votes cast entered in the paper, the delegate writes minutes. his name (see §8*) the arrangement of the points, Lenin altered their numeration. We give here his final variant. Lenin subsequently crossed out point 4 and wrote after it: “to 3”—Ed. * According to initial numeration (actually §9).—Ed. 80 V. I. LENIN

and his vote (yes, no, ab- stain) and also the question to which his vote applies. The questions may be designated by abbreviations or even by a figure, letter, etc. The bureau of the Congress keeps these ballot papers separately for each question until 9. Secret designation of the end of the Congress.)* each delegate’s name (or without name: first and second delegate from such and such a Party organisation, etc.).* 10. The chairman’s statement that the Congress (It is undesirable to touch has been finally constituted upon the question of the as the Regular Second Bund44 in connection with Congress of the Russian this point: it is better di- Social-Democratic Labour rectly to put it first in the Party and that, consequent- list of questions before the ly, the decisions of this Congress.) Congress shall invalidate all earlier contradictory decisions adopted by the Regu- lar First45 and sectional congresses—that, consequently, the decisions of this Congress shall be absolutely binding on all the Russian S.D.L. Party. 11. Discussion of list and priority of questions. B.List and Priority of Questions. 1. The Bund’s status in (It is necessary to write a the Russian S.D.L.P. (Does draft resolution on this ques- the Russian S.D.L.P. accept tion beforehand, and it is the federal principle of desirable to put it through.)

* The text in brackets is crossed out in the MS.—Ed. THE SECOND CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 81

Party organisation put for- NB: The reasons why this ward by the Bund?)* question is brought up into first place: formal (the Bund’s statements, the composition of the Congress, subordination to majority), and moral (complete elimination of split and confusion on basic issue). 2. Approval of the text (α. How many draft prog- of programme of the rammes shall be deemed Russian S.D.L.P. subject to examination by ||||| First reading: adop- the Congress? [Iskra’s, Bor- ||||| 46 47 ||||| tion as a whole of one ba’s, Zhizn’s ?] ||||| of the available drafts (β. Shall all the drafts ||||| ||||| as a basis for detailed be examined or one taken as ||||| discussion. a basis? Or otherwise: shall Second reading: adop- one of the proposed drafts tion of each point and be adopted in the first read- clause of the programme. ing?) 3. Creation of the Party’s (Necessity of having this Central Organ (newspaper) question as a separate item: or confirmation of one. end the struggle of trends within Social-Democracy.)* α) Does the Congress want to set up a new organ? β) If it does not, which of the existing organs does the Congress want to transform into the Party’s Cen- tral Organ? 4. Reports by the commit- α) How many reports are tees (including the report by there? the Organising Commit- β) Are all the reports to tee through one of its be read or referred to the members) and other Party committee?

* The text in brackets is crossed out in the MS.—Ed. 82 V. I. LENIN

organisations and individual γ) Are all the reports to members.* be discussed separately or together? (better separately) δ) Order of reading the reports. 5. Party organisation. Ap- proval of general organisational Rules of the Russian S.D.L.P. First reading: selection of one of the drafts as a whole. Second reading: discussion of one of the drafts point by point.** 6. Regional and national organisations. (Recognition or non-recognition of each of them separately in a specified composition and with (perhaps) such and such exemptions from the Party’s general Rules.)*** 7. Separate groups in the Party. Borba Emanci- P ! Zhizn p a t i o n N Volya48 of La- N It is necessary bour to have a draft resolution 49 M group N on each separate group and Iskra’s organisation in N separate organisation.***** !! Russia50 !! 51 Q Yuzhny Rabochy , etc.**** Final (or preliminary, that is, with the Central Commit- tee authorised to make the * Point 4 is crossed out. “Delegates’ reports” is written on top in an unknown hand.—Ed. ** The text from the word “Approval” to the words “point by point” is crossed out.—Ed. *** The text in brackets is crossed out.—Ed. **** The text from the word “Borba” to the word “etc.” is crossed out.—Ed. ***** The paragraph is crossed out.—Ed. THE SECOND CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 83 necessary inquiries and lay down the final decision*) approval of the list of all Party committees, organisations, groups, etc. 8. National question. It is necessary to have a resolution on the national question in general (explanation of “self-determination” and tactical conclusions from our explanation). Perhaps also a special res- ] olution against the ^ P.P.S.?52 9. Economic struggle and ( It is necessary to the trade union movement. have a resolution both on the principles and on the pressing tasks facing the Party.) 10. Celebration of May Ditto. Day. 11. International Social- Ditto. ist Congress in Amsterdam in 1904.53 12. Demonstrations and up- Ditto. rising. 13. Terrorism. Ditto. 21. Attitude of the Rus- Ditto. P sian S.D.L.P. to the So- N cialist-Revolutionaries. N and to the revolutionary insert these socialists?? etc.? M two questions after No. 7. 22. Attitude of the Rus- N *** sian S.D.L.P. to Russian N liberal trends.** Ditto. Q

* The text from the words “that is” to the word “decision” is crossed out.—Ed. ** Written in an unknown hand beside this point: “23. Attitude of the R.S.D.L.P. to other revolutionary and opposition parties and trends existing in Russia”. Written in Lenin’s hand before the number of the point: “23”.—Ed. *** The text is crossed out.—Ed. 84 V. I. LENIN 14. Internal questions of Party work: P organisation of propaganda. N 15. ””agitation 16. Party literature. N ”” Resolutions 17. work among the M ”” desirable. peasantry. N 18. ”””in the army. N 19. ”””among students. 20. ”””among sectarians. Q 24. Elections to the Cen- The Congress is to elect tral Committee and the three persons to the Edito- Editorial Board of the Par- rial Board of the Central ty C.O. Organ and three to the Cen- tral Committee. These 6 persons together shall, if necessary, co-opt by a two- thirds majority additional members to the Editorial Board of the Central Organ and the Central Committee and duly report to the Con- gress. Following the approval of this report by the Congress, subsequent co-ap- tation is to be carried out separately by the Editorial Board of the Central Organ and the Central Committee. 24. Election of the Party Council.54 25. The order governing the publication of decisions and minutes of the Congress and also the order governing the entry upon the exercise of their duties by elected functionaries and institutions.

Written in the second half of June and the first half of July 1903 First published in 1927 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany VI the original THE SECOND CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 85

2 SPEECHES DURING THE EXAMINATION OF THE LIST OF QUESTIONS SUBJECT TO DEBATE AT THE CONGRESS55 JULY 17 (30)

1 In the plan, the question of the programme is in the second place. The national question is a part of the programme and is to be dealt with when the latter is discussed. The question of regional and national organisations in general is an organisational one. But the question of attitude to the nationalities, in particular, is a tactical question and is an application of our general principles to practical activity.

2 The first item of the list relates specially to the Bund organisation. The sixth relates to the Party organisation. Upon the establishment of general rules for local, regional, national and other organisations, this special question is raised: which organisations and on what terms shall be recruited to the Party?

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov the text (The Regular Second Congress of the book of the R.S.D.L.P. Full Text of the Minutes), Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1904

3 SPEECH ON THE ACTIONS OF THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE56 JULY 18 (31) The Organising Committee may meet, but not as a collegium exerting an influence on the business of the Congress. The Organising Committee’s practical activity does not cease, but there is an end to its influence on the Congress apart from the commission.

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1904 86 V. I. LENIN

4 SPEECH ON THE ATTENDANCE OF THE POLISH SOCIAL- DEMOCRATS AT THE CONGRESS57 JULY 18 (31) I do not see any weighty arguments against an invitation. The Organising Committee has taken the first step in bringing the Polish comrades closer to the Russian. By inviting them to our Congress we shall take a second step in the same direction. I do not see this producing any complications.

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1904

5 SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE GENERAL SECTION OF THE PARTY PROGRAMME JULY 29 (AUGUST 11)

This insertion makes it worse.58 It creates the impression that consciousness grows spontaneously. Yet, there is no conscious activity of workers in international Social-Democ- racy outside the Social-Democrats’ sphere of influence.

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1904

6 SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE GENERAL POLITICAL DEMANDS OF THE PARTY PROGRAMME JULY 30 (AUGUST 12)

1 Lenin finds Strakhov’s amendment unsatisfactory, because the committee’s formulation specifically emphasises the people’s will.59 THE SECOND CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 87

2 Lenin opposes the word “regional”, because it is very vague and may be interpreted in the sense that the Social- Democrats want the whole state split up into small regions.60

3 Lenin finds the addition of the words “and to every foreigner” superfluous, because it is implicit that the Social- Democratic Party will insist that the paragraph in question shall apply to foreigners as well.61

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1904 7 SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE GENERAL POLITICAL DEMANDS OF THE PARTY PROGRAMME JULY 31 (AUGUST 13) The word “militia” does not say anything new and makes for confusion. The words “universal arming of the people” are clear and quite Russian. I find Comrade Lieber’s amendment superfluous.62

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1904 8 PROPOSALS ON VARIOUS POINTS OF THE GENERAL POLITICAL DEMANDS OF THE PARTY PROGRAMME63 1) Let “and language” stand at the end of §6. 2) Insert new point: “The right of the population to receive education in the native language, the right of each citizen to use the native language at meetings and in public and state institutions”. 3) In §11 delete the sentence about language.

Written between July 30 and August 1 (August 12 and 14), 1903 First published in 1959 in Printed from Vol. 7 of the Fifth Russian the original edition of the Collected Works 88 V. I. LENIN

9 SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE SECTION OF THE PARTY PROGRAMME RELATING TO LABOUR PROTECTION JULY 31 (AUGUST 13)

1 Lenin does not object to a 42-hour rest but, addressing Lieber, remarks that the programme speaks of supervision over all industries. An indication of the actual size will merely restrict the sense. When our programme is a bill we shall write in the details.64

2 I object to Comrade Lyadov’s amendment.65 His first two amendments are superfluous because in our programme we demand labour protection for all the branches of the economy and, consequently, for agriculture as well. As for the third, it applies entirely to the agrarian section and we shall return to it when debating our draft agrarian programme.

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P.Printed from Polny tekst protokolov,the text Central Committee publication,of the book Geneva, 1904

10 SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE AGRARIAN PROGRAMME AUGUST 1 (14)

1 Lenin tables this amendment: instead of “will work for” insert “demand above all”.66 The reports during the debates pointed out that the draft deliberately says “will work for” in order to emphasise that we do not intend to do this now but in the future. I motion this amendment to avoid giving ground for such misunderstandings. By the words “above all” I mean that we have other demands, apart from the agrarian programme. THE SECOND CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 89

2 I object to Comrade Lyadov’s proposal.67 We are not drafting a law, but are merely giving general indications. There are those among the townsfolk who also belong to the poll-tax paying estates; in addition, there are the small tradesmen in the suburbs and others, and if we were to write all this into our programme we should have to use the idiom of Volume IX of the Code of Laws.

3 I find Martynov’s question superfluous.68 Instead of putting forward general principles we are being forced into particulars. If we were to do so, we should never come to the end of the Congress. The principle is quite definite: every peasant has the right to dispose of his land, whether belonging to the commune or held as private property. That is nothing but the demand of the peasant’s right to dispose of his land. We insist that there should be no special laws for the peasant; we want more than the right of withdrawing from the commune. We are unable just now to decide on all the particulars that may crop up in implementing this. I am against Comrade Lange’s addendum; we cannot demand the abolition of all the laws governing tenure. That is going too far.

4 Martynov must be labouring under a misunderstanding. What we want is uniform application of general legislation, the one now accepted in all the bourgeois states, namely, that which is based on the principles of Roman law and which recognises both personal and common property. We should like to regard communal land-holdings as common property.

5 We are engaged in the drafting of addenda to §4 in respect of the Caucasus. These addenda should be inserted after point a). There are two draft resolutions. If we adopt Comrade Karsky’s amendment, the point will lose heavily in concreteness. In the Urals, for instance, there is a host 90 V. I. LENIN of survivals; over there, there is a veritable reservation of serfdom. Concerning the Latvians we could say that they fit the formula: “and in other regions of the state”. I support Comrade Kostrov’s proposal, namely: we must insert a demand for the transfer of land titles to the khizani, the temporarily bound and others.69

6 Paragraph 5 is connected with paragraph 16 of the labour programme: this does imply courts consisting equally of workers and employers; we must demand special representation for the farm labourers and the poor peasantry.70

7 I believe this to be unnecessary, since it would extend the competence of the courts out of all proportion.71 Our aim is to secure a reduction of rents, but the establishment of tariffs would enable the landowners to argue their case by referring to definite facts. The reduction of rent-prices rules out any idea of their increase. Kautsky, speaking of Ireland, said that some results were obtained there by the introduction of industrial courts.

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1904

11 SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE PARTY RULES AUGUST 2 (15) Lenin insists on the inclusion of the words about material support, since everyone accepts that the Party must exist on the funds of its members. On the question of setting up a political party, there should be no references to moral considerations.

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1904 THE SECOND CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 91

12 SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE PARTY RULES AUGUST 4 (17)

1 Lenin finds the first formulation unsuitable because it lends the Council an arbitral character.72 The Council, however, must be not only an arbitral institution, but also one co-ordinating the activity of the C.C. and the Central Organ. He also speaks out in favour of the Congress appointing a fifth member. It may well happen that the four members of the Council will be unable to elect a fifth; we shall then find ourselves without a necessary institution.

2 Lenin finds Comrade Zasulich’s arguments unsatisfactory.73 The case she described already implies struggle; in that case the Rules will be of no help. By leaving the election of the fifth member to the four members of the Council, we introduce struggle into the Rules. He considers it necessary to note that the Council is more than a reconciliation body. Thus, for instance, under the Rules, two members of the Council have the right to convene it.

3 Lenin favours the retention of this phrase; no one should be barred from taking his appeal to the centre. That is a necessary condition of centralisation.74

475 There are two questions here. The first is about the quali- fied majority, and I object to the proposal to reduce it from four-fifths down to two-thirds. Introduction of a motivated protest would show lack of foresight and I object to it.76 The second question is immensely more important—the right of mutual control over co-optation by the C.C. and the Central Organ. The mutual accord of the two centres is a necessary condition of harmony. This is a question of a break between the two centres. Those who do not want a split must see to it that there is harmony. We know from the life of the Party 92 V. I. LENIN that there have been people who introduced splits. This is a question of principle; it is an important question and the whole of the Party’s future may depend on it.

5 The Rules may have been lame in one leg, now Comrade Yegorov makes them lame in both.77 The Council is to co-opt only in exceptional cases. Complete confidence is necessary for both sides, for both centres, just because this is a complex mechanism. There can be no successful work together without full mutual trust. And the entire question of correct functioning together is closely bound up with the right of co-optation. Comrade Deutsch is wrong in exaggerating the technical difficulties.

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1904

13 ADDENDUM TO PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE DRAFT PARTY RULES The Central Committee and the Editorial Board of the Central Organ shall co-opt members only with the consent of all the members of the Party Council.

Motioned on August 5 (18) Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1904 14 SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE PARTY RULES AUGUST 5 (18) 1 Let me reply briefly to both objections.78 Comrade Martov says that I propose the unanimity of the two collegiums in co-opting members; that is not right. The Congress has decided not to give the right of veto to each member of two, possibly rather extensive, collegiums, but that does not THE SECOND CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 93 mean that we cannot vest this authority in the institution co-ordinating all the joint work of the two centres. The joint work of the two centres demands complete unanimity and even personal unity, and that is possible only if co-optation is unanimous. After all, if two members find co-optation necessary, they are entitled to convene the Council.

2 Martov’s amendment contradicts the already adopted point on the unanimous co-optation to the C.C. and the C.O.79 3 Comrade Martov’s interpretation is wrong, because the exemption contradicts unanimity.80 I appeal to the Congress and request it to decide whether Comrade Martov’s amendment should be put to the vote.

4 I should not argue with Comrades Glebov and Deutsch in substance, but I considered it necessary to mention the League81 in the Rules, first, because everyone knew of the League’s existence, second, to make note of the League’s representation in the Party under the old rules, and third, because all other organisations have the status of committees, whereas the League is introduced to bring out its special status.82

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1904

15 DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE STATEMENT BY MARTYNOV AND AKIMOV83

Recognising the statement made by Comrades Martynov and Akimov as contradicting our concept of members of the Congress and even members of the Party, the Congress invites Comrades Akimov and Martynov either to withdraw their statement or to make a definite statement of their 94 V. I. LENIN withdrawal from the Party. As for the minutes, the Congress in any case offers them the opportunity to attend the special sitting to approve the minutes.

Written on August 5 (18), 1903 First published in 1927 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany VI the original

16 SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE STATEMENT BY MARTYNOV AND AKIMOV AUGUST 5 (18)

1 The bureau has discussed the statement by Com- rades Martynov and Akimov which they filed at the morning sitting. I shall not go into the motivation, although it is wrong and extremely strange. No one has ever declared the Union84 closed and Comrades Martynov and Akimov made an incorrect inference from the Congress decision on the League. But even the closure of the Union could not deprive delegates of the right to participate in the work of the Con- gress. Similarly, the Congress cannot allow any refusal to take part in the voting. A member of the Congress is not free merely to approve the minutes without taking part in the rest of its work. For the time being, the bureau does not propose any resolution and refers this question for debate at the Congress. The statement by Martynov and Akimov is extremely abnormal and contradicts the status of member of the Congress.

2 What an absurd and abnormal situation we now have. On the one hand, we are told that the decisions of the Congress are being accepted, and on the other, there is the intention to withdraw over a decision on the Rules. By arriving here as a delegate of an organisation recognised by the Organising Committee, each one of us has become a member of the Congress. This title is not abolished by the dissolution of an organisation. What are we, the bureau, to do during the voting? We cannot simply omit those who THE SECOND CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 95 have left, because the Congress has already approved its constitution. There is one logical conclusion that suggests itself: withdrawal from the ranks of the Party altogether. The minutes may be approved with comrades of the Union being specially invited to attend, although the Congress is entitled to approve its minutes even without them. Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1904

17 ADDENDUM TO MARTOV’S RESOLUTION ON THE BUND’S WITHDRAWAL FROM THE R.S.D.L.P. The Congress resolves that all measures be taken to restore the unity of the Jewish and non-Jewish labour movement and to explain to the possibly broadest masses of the Jewish workers the attitude of the Russian Social-Democrats to the national question.

Written on August 5 (18), 1903 First published in 1959 Printed from in Vol. 7 of the Fifth Russian the original edition of the Collected Works

18 SPEECH DURING THE ELECTION OF THE PARTY’S CENTRAL COMMITTEE AUGUST 7 (20) We were reproached for the existence of a compact majority. That is not a bad thing in itself. Since a compact majority85 has been formed here, the question of whether the elected Central Committee will prove to be capable of functioning has already been weighed. There is no question of chance. There is a full guarantee. The election cannot be postponed. Very little time remains. Comrade Martov’s proposal to postpone the election is groundless. I support Comrade Rusov’s proposal.86 Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1904 96 V. I. LENIN

19 SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION OF POTRESOV (STAROVER) ON THE ATTITUDE TO THE LIBERALS87 AUGUST 10 (23) Starover’s resolution will be misconstrued: the student movement and Osvobozhdeniye88 are not the same thing at all. It would be harmful to take the same attitude to both. Struve’s name is too well known and the workers also know him. Comrade Starover thinks that a definite directive should be issued; I believe we need to define a principled and tactical attitude.

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1904

THE LAW ON COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO WORKERS INJURED IN ACCIDENTS The recent new law, the substance of which is stated in the title of the article, and the law on shop-stewards, which we analysed in the previous issue,* are rather typical specimens of the two trends in our labour legislation expressive of this or that concession to the spirit of the times. Apart from the aggressive reactionary laws of which we have a great abundance and which manage to pass through all the bureaucratic ordeals with especial rapidity, and which are moreover drawn up with especial thoroughness and applied with especial vigour, all the other laws in Russia relating to the working class may be classified under two heads, depending on their political character. These are either laws which in any way, even by a hair’s breadth, extend the workers’ independence, initiative and rights, in which case the laws are hedged with hundreds and thousands of exemptions, reservations, circular-letter explanations

* See present edition, Vol. 6, pp. 508-15.—Ed. THE LAW ON COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO WORKERS 97 and restrictions, all of which lead—as our draft programme puts it—to the “extension or consolidation of tutelage of the working classes by the police and officials”. Such are the laws on shop-stewards, factory inspection in general, etc. Or these are laws expressing a concession which has no bearing on citizens’ independence and initiative—in which case the autocratic government comes forward with incomparably greater generosity. And that is how it should be, of course, from the standpoint of the autocracy’s general tactics, from the standpoint of police interests, “correctly construed”. The policy of the police state has long been called that of the whip and carrot by West-European democrats, who have had all sorts of experience in fighting it. The carrot is the sops to the revolutionary classes, the economic concessions designed to sow discord within these classes, to win over a section of them and make it believe in the bourgeois government’s sincerity and friendly attitude to the proletariat. The whip is the police harassment of all those who have no trust in the government and sow mistrust among others; the whip is keeping in check all those who want complete freedom and independence for the working class, for its unions, for its meetings, for its newspapers, and for its political institutions and organs. The law on shop-stewards gives the workers representation which could serve them against the bourgeoisie and the government. Accordingly, the representation is so distorted and restricted as to enable only, or at any rate mainly, spies to benefit from it. Accordingly, in actual fact, what remains of workers’ representation, as proclaimed by the law, is the collar, as in the case of Trishka’s caftan. And that is needed to collar the ill-starred shop-steward and drag him off to the police station. On the other hand, the law on compensation for workers does not affect their political initiative in any way and, consequently, on that score there can be greater generosity. There it is less dangerous to act the “reformer”—and the need to act is imperative, because the growing labour movement is looming in an ever more formidable manner. The bureaucratic machine started its work on a bill on employers’ responsibility twenty years ago. It took ten years to draw up the bill; finally, it was approved by a special commission and in 98 V. I. LENIN

1893 it was promulgated and placed before the State Coun- cil89 ... only to be pigeon-holed once again for another ten years! It seemed quite impossible to make haste any slower than that, and the bill would possibly have roamed the ministries and the chancellories for another decade or so had not the onslaught by the working class of Russia shaken up the whole of the autocracy. Finally, and at long last, the bill, repeatedly worsened in many respects, has become law. For an assessment, let us compare it with the demand in our draft Party programme: in fact its “labour section” should he a guide in our work of agitation and propaganda. Nothing but a comparison of the separate points and demands of our programme with present-day reality and the attempts on the part of the ruling classes to reform it without giving anyone offence, will enable us, on the one hand, to give ourselves and the masses a fuller and more concrete understanding of the meaning and significance of our programme; and on the other, to see the defects of the laws in force; it will also help us to see in practice, from the facts, to what extent any reform is doomed to produce paltry results if the basis of the bourgeois system is retained. Our draft programme (§7 of the “labour section”) demands that the law should establish the employers’ civil liability in general (for workers’ injuries and disease), which means anyone who employs workers, anyone who derives profit from the unpaid labour of others, making use of their labour-power, but not being held liable for the destruction or damage of this commodity (labour-power) when in operation. However, the new law relates exclusively to workers and employees “in enterprises of the factory and works, mining and metallurgical industries”. Consequently, all agricultural workers, handicraftsmen, builders, artisans and so on and so forth are excluded. This means the exclusion of the vast majority of wage-labourers, who often work in even worse and more dangerous conditions; for example, building and agricultural workers operating machines suffer from injuries as much as, if not more than, factory workers. How is this exemption to be explained? The answer is that outside factories and works the shoe does not yet pinch so badly: so far the labour movement has made a formidable THE LAW ON COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO WORKERS 99 showing only among the leading sections of the proletariat, and it is only in this sphere that the government has shown “concern” (not for the workers, of course, but for their suppression). But the proletariat, that part of it which participates in the movement, that is, the class-conscious proletariat, does not struggle for the benefit and advantages of some single section of the workers, but for the whole class, for all the classes oppressed by the capitalist system. This brings out very well the difference between the reforms which the proletariat seeks, and the reforms which the government hands out as sops. Furthermore, the new law binds the owners of enterprises to pay compensationFROM to workers MARX only for the loss of capacity for work, “due to bodily injury caused by operations in the production of theTO enterprise MAO or arising in consequence of such operations”. Our programme demands the establishment of liability not only for disability caused by accidents, but also by hazardous working conditions. Conse- quently, once again the new law narrows down the employers’ liability. Everyone knows that masses of workers are disabled not by accidents alone, not by bodily injury, but by the diseases caused by the hazardous working conditions. Unless the employers are held liable for the workers’ disability through disease,NOT no FOR amount of rules or instructions will do any good in the struggle against these hazardous conditions. Indeed let us consider what difference there is COMMERCIAL in substance between the accident in which a machine cuts off a worker’s leg and the case of a worker who is poisonedDISTRIBUTION by phosphorus, lead, dyes, etc. Has not medical science already created a whole department of occupational diseases whose origins have been traced to hazardous working conditions and proved as surely as twice two is four? However the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois government are not guided by logic or common sense, but by gross self-interest: accidents will cost them less than bodily injuries plus disease arising from hazardous conditions. And the whole point, for them, is not to “provide security” for the workers but to pay less. The new law releases the worker from the onus of proving that the disability has occurred through the fault of the capitalist. That is undoubtedly a step forward from the 100 V. I. LENIN past. But—the Russian Government is unable to take a step forward anywhere without a “but”!—but to make up for that, employers may prove not only ill intent on the part of the victim himself, but also “gross carelessness on his (victim’s) part, unwarranted by the dispatch of operations”. This addition largely paralyses the establishment of real liability and—given the packing of our courts by officials, careerists and bourgeois pedants—can paralyse the application of the law altogether. “Gross carelessness” is something quite vague and indefinable. It is entirely up to the officials to decide in what conditions and to what extent gross carelessness is or is not warranted. The capitalists have always regarded and will always regard any “carelessness” on the worker’s part as gross and unwarranted, and will always he able to muster ten times more witnesses and “learned counsel” than the workers to prove their point (legal counsel are already being paid annual fees by the factories!). The writing of this whole point on gross carelessness into the law is a crass concession to the manufacturer’s profit urge: the workers never get caught in the machine by preference, but always by mishap, but the fact is that you can’t be careful when working ten or eleven hours a day among badly screened machines, in poorly lit shops, amid the din and roar, with your wits dulled by the work, and with your nerves on edge because of excessive tension. That being so, to deprive a disabled worker of compensation because of gross carelessness to penalise him additionally for permitting the capitalists their unscrupulous exploitation. These points provide the basic and most important definitions of the new law, fully delineating its essence. We cannot, of course, deal here with all the particulars, but let us look only at the most characteristic ones. The amount of the compensation is determined in proportion to the victim’s annual earnings, namely, the pension must not be in excess of two-thirds of his annual earnings (in the event of death or total disability). The annual earnings are determined on the basis of the average daily wage (or the average daily wage of an unskilled worker) multiplied by 260. This provision contains another three reductions in the size of compensation, three endorsements of the THE LAW ON COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO WORKERS 101 employers’ profit urge. First, even if the worker has worked 300 days in the year, his annual earnings are cut down to 260 days—without any grounds, simply because the law commands that they should be cut! Second, even if the worker has been earning more than an unskilled worker, the calculation—involving work, say, at enterprises running part of the year—is still based on the earnings of an unskilled worker. The government would very much like to reduce all workers to the status of unskilled workers—hence the lesson for the class-conscious proletariat, that only the close unity of all workers and all unskilled workers together can create a force capable of overcoming capital’s profit urge. Third, the unskilled worker’s average daily wage is determined once in three years (sic!) by the offices for factory, mining and metallurgical affairs, without, need we say, any of the workers participating. That is not their business, for who can doubt that the chancellories of the governor and the chief of gendarmes have an excellent knowledge of how the workers live and what they earn. Let us note, too, that the law binds the owners of enterprises to notify the police immediately only about accidents which fall within the compass of the law. Which are they? They are those involving disability for more than three days. But who can tell just after an accident for how many days the worker has been disabled? This rule is ridiculously absurd and in many cases merely provides the manufacturers with a loophole for divesting themselves (and being divested by the courts) of the duty of informing the authorities of every accident. It is true that the law decrees that the victim may demand notification of the police of all cases of bodily injury without exception, even where they do not fall under the law: that is said in so many words in §20, of the “rules on compensation payable to injured workers”, and we strongly advise all workers to campaign in every way for the constant application of this paragraph without fail. Let the workers insist that everyone injured should always demand unconditionally, on the strength of §20, that the factory inspector be notified of every accident; only then will it be possible to determine to any precise extent the number of accidents occurring and to study their causes. We are sure that the class-conscious 102 V. I. LENIN workers will make use of this right, but then great masses will not even be aware that such a right is open to them! For failure to notify the police of accidents and in general for any failure to observe the rules of the new law the owners of enterprises are subject only to a cash fine of from 25 to 100 rubles. That is, of course, an absolutely negligible fine, which is not at all a dreadful one for the large factories (which employ the vast majority of factory workers). This case makes especially clear the necessity of implementing §14 of our draft programme, which demands “the establishment of criminal responsibility for employers for breaches of labour protection laws”. It is a mockery of the worker to threaten millionaires with 100-ruble fines for non-observance of a law on which depends the security of a worker disabled for life. Par. 31, which entitles injured workers and their families to enter into agreement with the owners of enterprises concerning the type and amount of compensation payable to them, is one of the most pernicious and Jesuitical points of the new law. Need we say that the vast majority of these agreements will amount to systematic fraud and intimida- tion of the least developed workers who are sure of only one thing, namely, that Russian courts are biased, bureaucratic and expensive. Factory inspectors, who are to witness these agreements (equivalent to settlements out of court), will safeguard anyone’s interests but those of the workers. The factory inspectors, who are now being increasingly turned into mere assistants of the police, play the part of “reconcilers”. What is more, it is the intention of the law to turn them into a peculiar category of magistrates. The law encourages employers and workers to apply to factory inspectors in clearing up the rights and duties of the parties, with the factory inspectors being empowered both to collect “all the necessary information” and to demand its submission to the parties, and to invite doctors for certification. This is already purely judicial business and it is assigned to officials under the governor! What is more, no procedure, no rules governing this court have been laid down: how the inspector is to collect the information, how he is—and is he at all—to submit this information to both parties, how he is to conduct the examination—all that is left entirely TO THE MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE SECOND CONGRESS 103 up to him. This is something positively like the police courts of the pre-Reform period. The law even holds out the threat of a deprivation for failure to apply to the factory constable (in his capacity as magistrate): those who fail to apply to the factory inspector before going to court, lose their right to receive court and legal costs from the defendant. It remains for us only to give another reminder at this point that the Social-Democratic Labour Party does not demand courts of that kind, not mediation by officials, but the establishment of industrial courts on which employers and workers are equally represented. That is the only kind of court, given a free political system in the state, that can assure the workers of anything like satisfactory mediation in the business of elucidating the rights and duties of the parties, and in the preliminary examination of claims involving disability compensation. There are such courts in all civilised states, and as long as 40 years ago even Russian officials used to propose their introduction in Russia. Forty years ago, a commission was appointed to revise the factory and handicraft regulations. The commission has published its “transactions”, five volumes of them; the commission has written the drafts of new regulations; the commission has come out in favour of setting up industrial courts consisting of elected representatives—and... and the whole thing has been shelved! Heaps of good intentions are stacked up in the archives of innumerable offices in Russia, and will continue to be there until the working class gives all this rubbish a shake-up.

Iskra No. 47, September 1, 1903 Printed from the Iskra text

TO THE MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE SECOND CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P.

Comrades! In reply to your inquiry as to whether or not we are willing to have our names published in the minutes of the Second Congress we inform you that, for our part, we have absolutely no objection to it, but cannot undertake to decide to what extent this is permissible for reasons of 104 V. I. LENIN security in the interests of our comrades in Russia. It is up to the competent Party body to decide on this question of secrecy.

Geneva, October 4,N. Lenin 1903G. Plekhanov

First published in 1927Printed from in Lenin Miscellany VIthe original

TO THE MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE SECOND CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P.

The C.C. requests the committee for publishing the minutes of the Congress to let it have immediately the full text as adopted by the Congress of 1) the Party Programme; 2) the organisational Rules of the Party, and 3) all the resolutions and decisions of the Congress.

Written on September 23 (October 6), 1903 First published in 1959Printed from in Vol. 8 of the Fifth Russianthe original edition of the Collected Works

THE SECOND CONGRESS OF THE LEAGUE OF RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONARY SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY ABROAD90 OCTOBER 13-18 (ù6-31), 1903

1 REMARKS ON THE AGENDA OCTOBER 13 (26)

1 There is no point in limiting the deliberations on the Rules beforehand. This is to be a new set of rules and, consequently, the words “working out the Rules” may be left in.91 THE SECOND CONGRESS OF THE LEAGUE 105

I need more than an hour for my report. I can, of course, fold it up, but I believe that that is not in the interests of the assembly. I request the chairman to ask the Congress for its opinion. Will it give me more time or must I cut down my report?

The League has elected two delegates. Comrade Martov has resigned, and I am now the only authorised delegate. Since there is no longer any time limitation on speeches, I do not understand the meaning of Martov’s proposal.92 There are many here who attended the Congress, and I think we may have not one co-report, but a whole series of them.

Protokoly vtorogo ocherednogo Printed from syezda Zagranichnoi ligi russkoi the text revolutsionnoi sotsial-demokratii,of the minutes (Minutes of the Regular Second Congress of the League of Russian Revolutionary Social- Democracy Abroad), Geneva, 1903

2 PREPATORY REMARK TO THE REPORT ON THE SECOND CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. OCTOBER 13 (26)

I did indeed ask the assembly myself, and no one stopped me. I think that it is quite all right to talk freely about everything. There is a tremendous difference between private conversations and the meetings of the Iskra organisation. At any rate, let the meeting express its views. I shall not speak of the private meetings of the Iskra organisation until the League finds it necessary for me to do so.

Protokoly vtorogo ocherednogo Printed from syezda Zagranichnoi ligi russkoi the text revolutsionnoi sotsial-demokratii,of the minutes Geneva, 1903 106 V. I. LENIN

3 STATEMENT CONCERNING MARTOV’S REPORT OCTOBER 16 (29)

I declare that now that Martov’s so-called co-report yesterday has given an undignified turn to the debate, I consider it unnecessary and impossible to take part in any debates on this point of the Tagesordnung* and, consequently, also waive my summing-up speech, especially in view of the fact that if Martov has the courage to make definite and open charges, he must do so before the whole Party in a pamphlet which in my formal challenge yesterday I sug- gested he should write.93

Protokoly vtorogo ocherednogo Printed from syezda Zagranichnoi ligi russkoi the text revolutsionnoi sotsial-demokratii,of the minutes Geneva, 1903

4 SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE LEAGUE RULES OCTOBER 17 (30)

1 There is no need to object at length to these arguments.94 §6 gives the right to organise and consequently to reorganise as well,95 and a reorganised League will still be the same League, the only Party organisation abroad.

2 To Comrade Martov’s question about whether or not functionaries should be confirmed by the Central Committee, I reply that I see no obstacles to the elected administrative officers being approved by the Central Committee.

Protokoly vtorogo ocherednogo Printed from syezda Zagranichnoi ligi russkoi the text revolutsionnoi sotsial-demokratii,of the minutes Geneva, 1903

* Agenda.—Ed. DECISION OF THE PARTY COUNCIL 107

5 SPEECH ON THE RESULT OF THE VOTING OF THE RESOLUTIONS ON THE LEAGUE RULES OCTOBER 17 (30) ...Lenin declares on his own behalf and on behalf of the comrades who voted with him that he regards the rejection of Comrade Konyagin’s resolution and the adoption of Comrade Martov’s resolution as a crying violation of the Party Rules.96 (“Which paragraph of the Rules specifically does the vote contradict?”) I refuse to answer such questions, because this has been sufficiently well clarified in the course of the debate. (“State the paragraph of the Rules which the resolution we have adopted contradicts.”) It is up to the Party’s central institutions to interpret the Rules; and that is what they will do. Protokoly vtorogo ocherednogo Printed from syezda Zagranichnoi ligi russkoi the text revolutsionnoi sotsial-demokratii,of the minutes Geneva, 1903

DECISION OF THE PARTY COUNCIL GENEVA. NOVEMBER 1, 1903 Copy Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party The Council of the Party consisting of Valentinov, Ilyin, Ru and Vasilyev, who is authorised to represent the vote of Yefimov, the fifth member of the Council, met at Geneva on November 1, 1903, at the request of two members of the Council, Ilyin and Vasilyev, and decided: to recognise the acts of the representative of the Central Committee at the League Congress to be correct,97 and to authorise him to reorganise the League through the inclusion of new members. Valentinov, Ilyin, Vasilyev, Vasilyev for Yefimov, Ru. Published in 1904 in the pamphlet Printed from Kommentarii k protokolam vtorogo the original syezda Zagranichnoi ligi russkoi verified with revolutsionnoi sotsial-demokratii the text (Commentary on the Minutes of the pamphlet of the Second Congress of the League of Russian Revolutionary Social-Democracy Abroad), Geneva 108 V. I. LENIN

R.S.D.L.P. COUNCIL98 JANUARY 15-1û (ù8-30), 1904

1 REMARK ON A POINT OF ORDER JANUARY 15 (28)

Lenin raises a point of order and, when given the floor, motions a discussion of the question of the measures which could help to restore peace in the Party and normal relations between members of the Party who do not see eye to eye.

First published in full in 1929 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany X the minutes (with Lenin’s corrections)

2 REMARKS ON THE AGENDA JANUARY 16 (29)

Lenin insists that his resolution should be put to the vote first99 and refers to the existing custom giving voting priority to the resolution which was motioned earlier.

The right of introducing minority opinions has always been recognised as a part of the order of business. Comrade Martov made an attempt to separate the general from the particular.100 I quite agree with this, but I merely give a somewhat different wording to his proposal.

First published in full in 1929 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany X the minutes (with Lenin’s corrections) R.S.D.L.P. COUNCIL. JANUARY 1904 109

3 SPEECH MOTIONING A DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PEACE IN THE PARTY JANUARY 16 (29)

Lenin (reads out his resolution): “To establish peace in the Party and normal relations between differing members of the Party there is need for the Party Council to explain which forms of the internal Party struggle are correct and admissible and which are incorrect and inadmissible.”

Published in 1904 in the pamphlet Printed from the N. Shakhov, Borba za syezd minutes verified (Struggle for the Congress), Geneva with the original

4 SPEECH CONCERNING THE MINORITY OPINION ENTERED BY THE C.C. REPRESENTATIVES JANUARY 17 (30)

A rule has been established in the practice of all congresses in virtue of which those voting have the right to record their minority opinions. Of course, every minority opinion is essentially a kind of criticism. But this circumstance did not, after all, prevent the entry at the Second Congress of a minority opinion issued by the Bund representatives, an opinion which was the sharpest kind of criticism levelled at the decision adopted by the Congress. Our minority opinion gets out the motives for which we opposed Comrade Plekhanov’s proposal and in general our attitude to this proposal. It is the more necessary to read out this minority opinion because at the end of it there is a motivated statement to the effect that we withdraw our resolution.

First published in full in 1929 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany X the minutes (with Lenin’s corrections) 110 V. I. LENIN

5 SPEECH IN DEFENCE OF THE MINORITY OPINION OF THE C.C. REPRESENTATIVES JANUARY 17 (30)

I resolutely protest against the idea that our minority opinion contained any accusations levelled at the Council. Such an interpretation is entirely wrong and Comrade Martov’s attempt is an encroachment on our freedom of expression; his resolution is therefore unwarranted.101

First published in full in 1929 Printed from the in Lenin Miscellany X minutes (with Lenin’s corrections)

6 REMARK ON THE AGENDA JANUARY 17 (30)

The representatives of the C.C. would like to move several other small points for discussion, but I request that the question of convening a Party congress should be placed on the order paper beforehand.

First published in full in 1929 Printed from the in Lenin Miscellany X minutes (with Lenin’s corrections)

7 DRAFT RESOLUTION MOVED ON JANUARY 17 (30)

The Party Council considers it improper for the representatives of the C.O. Editorial Board to communicate to the Secretary of the C.O. Comrade Vasilyev’s opinion of him, because this opinion was submitted to the members of the Council only, being a part of the meetings within the Party’s supreme body.

First published in full in 1929 Printed from the in Lenin Miscellany X minutes (with Lenin’s corrections) TO THE RUSSIAN PROLETARIAT 111

ON BEHALF OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC LABOUR PARTY102

We whole-heartedly welcome the excellent idea of the “Group of Founders” to set up a library and archives of the Central Committee of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, and earnestly request all comrades and all those sympathising with this long overdue measure to give every possible assistance to our comrades who have undertaken the effort in organising this complex and important business. Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. January 29, 1904

Published in January 1904Printed from together with the appeal by thethe text “Group of Founders” in a separateof the leaflet leaflet “To One and All”

TO THE RUSSIAN PROLETARIAT103 The war is on. The Japanese have already inflicted a series of defeats on the Russian troops, and the tsarist government is now straining every nerve to avenge itself for these defeats. Military districts are being mobilised one after another, and tens of thousands of soldiers are being hastily dispatched to the Far East; desperate efforts are being made abroad to secure another loan, and contrac- tors have been promised bonuses running to thousands of rubles a day for accelerating the works required by the war department. The people’s every fibre is put to the greatest strain because the struggle that has been started is no trifling matter; it is a struggle against a 50-million-strong people who are splendidly armed, splendidly prepared for the war, and who are fighting for the conditions which they believe to be urgently necessary for free national development. This is going to be a struggle by a despotic and backward government against a people that is politically free and is rapidly progressing in culture. The war against the sickly Turkey in 1877 and 1878, which exacted such a high 112 V. I. LENIN price from the Russian people, was negligible when compared to the war now started. What in that case is at issue in the life-and-death struggle now being waged by the Russian workers and peasants against the Japanese? The issue is “Yellow Russia”, the issue is Manchuria and Korea, the new lands seized by the Russian Government. It had promised all the other powers to preserve the inviolability of China, it had promised to return Manchuria to China not later than October 8, 1903, and it had failed to honour its promise. The tsarist government had so run away with itself in its policy of military adventures and plunder of its neighbours that it found no strength to go back. In “Yellow Russia” it has built fortifications and ports, it has laid a railway line and has concentrated tens of thousands of troops. But how do the Russian people benefit from these new lands whose acquisition has cost so much blood and sacrifice and is bound to cost even more? For the Russian worker and peasant the war holds out the prospect of fresh calamities, the loss of a host of human lives, the ruin of a mass of families, and more burdens and taxes. The Russian army leadership and the tsarist government believe that the war holds out the promise of military glory. The Russian merchant and the millionaire-industrialist think the war is necessary to secure new marketing outlets for their goods and new ports in an unrestricted ice-free sea for the development of Russian trade. You can’t sell much at home to the starving muzhik and the unemployed worker, you must look for marketing outlets in foreign lands! The riches of the Russian bourgeoisie have been created by the impoverish- ment and the ruin of the Russian workers—and so now, in order to multiply these riches, the workers must shed their blood to give the Russian bourgeoisie a free hand in conquering and enslaving the Chinese and the Korean working man. This criminal war, which holds in store immense calamities for the working people, has been engendered by the interests of the greedy bourgeoisie, the interests of capital, which is prepared to sell and ruin its own country in its drive for profit. This hazardous gamble involving the blood and property of Russian citizens is the result of the policy THREE OUTLINES FOR A REPORT ON THE PARIS COMMUNE 113 of a despotic government which tramples all human rights and keeps its people in servitude. In response to the wild war-cries, in response to the “patriotic” flag-waving by the flunkeys of the money-bag and the lackeys of the police- whip, the class-conscious Social-Democratic proletariat must come forward and demand with tenfold energy: “Down with the autocracy!”, “Let a people’s constituent assembly be convened!” The tsarist government has plunged so deep into this reckless military gamble that it has at stake a great deal too much. Even in the event of success, the war against Japan threatens total exhaustion of the people’s forces— with the results of the victory being absolutely negligible, for the other powers will prevent Russia from enjoying the fruits of victory as they prevented Japan from doing so in 1895.104 In the event of defeat, the war will lead above all to the collapse of the entire government system based on popular ignorance and deprivation, on oppression and violence. They who sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind! Long live the fraternal union of the proletarians of all countries fighting for complete liberation from the yoke of international capital! Long live Japanese Social-Democracy protesting against the war! Down with the ignominious and predatory tsarist autocracy! Central Committee of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party Written on February 3 (16), 1904 Published in February 1904Printed from as a separate leafletthe text of the leaflet

THREE OUTLINES FOR A REPORT ON THE PARIS COMMUNE105 1 In Memory of the Paris Commune

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

W Celebration of the greatest working-class uprising of the 19th century. Historical outline. 114 V. I. LENIN

1. France under Napoleon III. Imperialism. (S. 45) — retribution for June 1848. Napoleon III. — Expropriation of France by a gang of brigands. α. Bonapartism !∃the workers not yet capable the bourgeoisie no longer106 β. Rapid industrial development. Plutocratic orgies. Flourishing of speculation. Corruption. γ. —Workers’ movement— I.A.A.107 1862 London exposition108 — 1864 foundation

]]Proudhonism109 S.10 ]]Blanquism110 2. Dynastic war. Rescue of a band of adventurers—chauvinism. Left bank of the Rhine. On to Berlin (especially after 1866)111 P N July 19, 1870 war declared. N German pronouncements (Wilhelm I): Verteidigungs- M krieg.* (S. 20 in a speech from the throne: war N against Napoleon III, not against the French people; N idem Aug. 11, 1870 in a manifesto to the French on Q crossing the border.) 3. Workers’ protest. P — French manifesto of July 12, 1870 (S. 16) N (and provincial resolutions on July 22, 1870) First N (S. 16-17) Manifesto of Paris members of the Address N International of July 12. of the N — German protest (meeting at Chemnitz) General M (S. 18) Council N (meeting at Brunswick on July 16, 1870 of the N (S. 18)—Berlin section of the International. Interna- N — Address of the General Council of the tional N International 1) July ? 3, 187 0 against Q the war. * Defensive war.—Ed. THREE OUTLINES FOR A REPORT ON THE PARIS COMMUNE 115

4. Outcome of war. Sedan Sept. 2, 1870. Napoleon III prisoner of war. De- bâcle.112 Collapse of corrupt regime. Proclamation of the republic Sept. 4, 1870 by workers in Paris. Power in the hands of rascals, power—to the de- Louis Philippe’s Minister of Police legates of Paris in Thiers, General Trochu. Jules ] the legislative ^ Favre, Jules Ferry, Ernest Picard. corps

. . . “Government of national defence” . . . .

National defence=arming of the workers= revolution. Government of popular betrayal. Defence ... against the Paris workers.

5. Advice of the International.

Second Transformation of the defensive war into Address an offensive one. of the Central Committee of the German Social- General Democratic Workers’ Party protested Council against annexation of Alsace-Lorraine.113 (Sept. 9, 1870) (Arrest of Bracke and others.) (S. 25). Not to allow oneself to be provoked to “desperate folly”. Not to be deluded by national memories of 1792. “Organise your own class calmly and resolutely”, use p. liberty.114

6. Siege of Paris. Comedy of Comedy of defence: Guiod Trochu (never!) and Jules writing to Susane about Favre (not an inch of one of the latter’s protégés: soil!).115 let him go to Mont Surrender of Paris. Jan. Valérien, he said, where 28, 1871. the guns are being allegedly fired off,116 7. National Assembly at Under the terms of the sur- Bordeaux. render (Jan. 28, 1871) 116 V. I. LENIN

—Chamber of Junkers. (S. 34), the National Reactionaries. Assembly must be con- —Comedy of peace with vened within 8 days (!). Paris. Urge to disarm Thiers’ agitation for a Paris (“disarmament of reactionary assembly, the revolution” Sept. 4, Legitimists, etc. (450 1870). Alliance with the monarchists out of 750 German army against members). Paris. Conspiracy against Paris: Thiers’ measures (S. 35).

The pretence that the 1) anti-republican demon- guns of the National stration by the National Guard belong to the Assembly state! A lie! S. 36-37. 2) ambiguity of Thiers’ expressions 3) threat to Paris (déca- piter décapitaliser*) 4) ban on republican newspapers 5) death sentence for Blanqui 6) appointment of Vinoy governor of Paris, Valentin, Police Prefect, D’Aurelle de Paladines, commander of the National Guard.

8. Attempt to take Manifesto of March 18: S.43. away the guns. March 18, 1871. Central March 18, 1871. Committee of the (from the Na- !∃Vinoy National Guard. tional Guard). Failure March 26, 1871. Commune. Commune. March 18. Govern- Clericals, Bonapartists, ment’s night to Ver- ] gendarmes. ^ sailles.

* Decapitate and decapitalise.—Ed. THREE OUTLINES FOR A REPORT ON THE PARIS COMMUNE 117

It was not the Commune Paris waging war against but the indignant sol- Versailles from early diers who shot Lecomte April. and Clément Thomas, Begging Bismarck for troops the Bonapartist officers. (prisoners of war) (S. 57-58). 9. The Commune’s deeds. Its minuses: — lack of class consciousness (Proudhon- ists, Blanquists) — lack of organisation failure to take ] the bank and ^ attack Versailles — infatuation with nationalistic and revolutionary talk. 10. Its pluses: A) Political reforms α. separation of church from state (Apr. 2, 1871). Expropriation of church properties. Abolition of all state payments to the church. Free public education (S. 46) β. abolition of standing army (March 30, 1871) (S. 46) Working- γ. abolition of bureaucracy. Government of the class workers (S. 49). Regierungsfähig.* govern- (1) All officials elective and removable (S. 46). ment Apr. 1, 1871 (2) Small salary, to be not over 6,000 francs (S. 46) managed to do with a quarter of the officials: Lissa- garay, S. δ. Equal rights for aliens (March 30, 1871), a German—minister of the Commune117 (S. 53). Participation of Poles (Dabrowski, Wróblewski).

The banner of the Commune is the banner of a world republic

ε. Self-government of communes.

* Capable of governing.—Ed. 118 V. I. LENIN

11. B) Economic reforms. Transformation P — Bakers’ night work banned (Apr. of the Paris of N 20) (S. 53). idlers and pleas- N — Fines banned (S. 53). ure-seekers into N — The Commune won over a mass of a working-class N Paris petty bourgeois ruined (ela- Paris (S. 55-56). M borate) by Napoleon III (debts de- N ferred) (S. 51). The Commune N addresses the peasants (S. 51). N — Transfer of abandoned factories to N workers’ associations Apr. 16 (S. 54): Q statistical census of factories. 12. Last fight. —Heroism of the Federals (Election of mayors on Apr. 30 against the National Assembly. Thiers gives in to Bismarck: peace treaty signed at Frankfort on May 10. Approved by the National Assembly on May 21.) —Week of bloodshed May 21-28, 1871 (S. 62). Rifles not enough machine-guns. —Balance 35,000 20,000 killed 15,000 transported, etc. Courts busy ]^for several years. Chorus of slander (S. 64-66). 13. Results and lessons. Revenge by the bourgeoisie. Even the “national war” turned out to be a political fraud (S. 67). Country betrayed (alliance with the Germans: S. 66). Instability of bourgeois democracy. Dictatorship of the proletariat. Bismarck 1871. Confer 1904.

Written before March 9 (22), 1904 First published in 1934 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXVI the original THREE OUTLINES FOR A REPORT ON THE PARIS COMMUNE 119

2 1. France under Napoleon III. Government of Bonapartists. Industrial development. Working- Proudhonism class!∃ and movement— Blanquism I. A. A. 2. Dynastic war. Chauvinism (July 19, 1870) On to Berlin. Left bank of the Rhine.— NB (German statements: Vertei- digungskrieg.) 3. Workers’ protest (work- —French manifesto ing-class attitude) (Resolutions) —German protest —Address of the General Council of the Internation- al—warning to workers: organise, watch out for NB provocations. 4. Course and outcome of —Collapse of corrupt regime. war. —Siege of Paris. —Proclamation of the republic on Sept. 4, 1870. French workers—their cause— utilised by the bourgeoisie Government of “national defence”. (Rascals in its midst.) 5. Defence of Paris. Comedy of Jules Favre (Trochu). —its surrender. 6. Attempt to disarm the proletariat. March 18, 1871. The Commune. 7. Versailles government. Chamber of Junkers, landowners (Ruraux, Krautjunker). —comedy of “peace” with Paris —bargaining with Bismarck —alliance with the German army against the proletariat. 120 V. I. LENIN

8. The Commune.... Its minuses—lack of class consciousness (Proudhon- ism and Blanquism) —lackP failure to P ofN take the N organ- M bank and M isa- N to attack N tionQ Versailles Q —interlacing of nationalistic elements

9. &A) Political P —separation of church from state freedom N —abolition of standing army N —abolition of bureaucracy M —equal rights for aliens. Partici- N pation of Poles N —self-government of communes Q (the Commune). 10. B) Economic —bakers’ night work banned reforms —fines banned —debts deferred —idle factories handed over to workers —binding character (maintenance, etc.) of any cohabitation with a woman —payment (pensions?) to all widows. 11. Last fight: Heroism of the Federals. Week of bloodshed. Balance: 35,000. Terrorism. 12. Results and lessons: Revenge by the bourgeoisie. Challenge to battle. Bismarck 1871 and 1904.

Written before March 9 (22), 1904 First published in 1934 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXVI the original THREE OUTLINES FOR A REPORT ON THE PARIS COMMUNE 121

I. 1. Napoleon III and his band. 2. Shame of France. 3. Bourgeoisie’s guilt in Napoleon III. II. 1. Dynastic war against Germany. 2. French workers’ protest (Paris, July 12, and Manifesto of the International, July 23). 3. Wilhelm I’s solemn promise (Aug. 11). His deception. 4. German workers’ protest (Sept. 5, 1870) and their arrest. III. 1. Republic Sept. 4, 1870. Won by Paris workers. 2. Seizure of power by swindlers (Favre, Trochu, Thiers—ticket-of-leave men118). 3. “Government of popular defence”=government of popular betrayal. Fight against French workers. IV. Marx’s warning (Manifesto of the International Sept. 9, 1870). Dupont’s letters.119 V. 1. Slave-owners’ and monarchists’ plot to disarm Paris. 2. Bordeaux and the transfer of the National Assemb - ly to Versailles. 3. Dispatch of Vinoy, Valentin and de Paladines to Paris. 4. Monarchist speeches in the Assembly of “Rurals”. VI. Start of civil war by Thiers: guns taken away March 18, 1871 (Lecomte and Clément Thomas killed). VII. March 18, 1871. The Commune. 1. Republic & self-government. 2. The Commune’s measures. 3. {{Its two mistakes}} Failure to attack Ver- ] sailles ^ ” to take the bank VIII. War against the Commune: begging Bismarck for

soldiers, ignominious peace. Week of bloodshed

N N May 21-28, 1871. P 35,000 killed 20,000 according to bourgeois newspaper

P N N N N M N N N N estimates. Q 122 V. I. LENIN

13,450 (including 157 women)120 sentenced by the courts (! after March 18 the courts were busy for another 52 years!). Written before March 9 (22), 1904 First published on March 13, 1926Printed from in Pravda No. 63the original

R.S.D.L.P. COUNCIL121 MAY 31 AND JUNE 5 (JUNE 13 AND 18), 1904 1 REMARK ON THE AGENDA MAY 31 (JUNE 13) Lenin motions the addition to the list of items on the agenda of the question raised by the Polish Socialist Party (P.P.S.) concerning the desirability of calling a conference of R.S.D.L.P. and P.P.S. representatives to discuss the basis and terms of joint struggle by the two parties. First published in full in 1930 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XV the minutes 2 SPEECHES ON AN INTER- PARTY CONFERENCE122 MAY 31 (JUNE 13)

1 I second the proposal to invite both Latvian organisations.123 As for the Armenian federalist organisation,124 there can be no question of inviting it to the conference after what Comrade Martov has said about its intimacy with the Socialist-Revolutionaries. Furthermore, I don’t quite see the point of Comrade Plekhanov’s insistent proposal of the need for an immediate reply to the Finns.

2 I think it would be too much to demand unanimity in decisions on questions of principle.125 I can’t see any of the Social-Democrats staying on if the conference adopted some monstrous decision. First published in full in 1930 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XV the minutes R.S.D.L.P. COUNCIL. MAY- JUNE 1904 123

3 SPEECHES ON R.S.D.L.P. REPRESENTATION AT THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONGRESS MAY 31 (JUNE 13)

1 I should like to have an explanation as to whether it is convenient to send delegates both from the Council and from the individual organisations. Are there any similar examples in the practice of other countries at earlier congresses? I think this mode of representation is somewhat inconvenient in terms of both principle and practice (from the financial, technical and other standpoints). Would it not be better for the Council to be represented there in corpore? I don’t see how we could be victimised. After all, our Party can’t be deprived of its vote!

2 Since Comrade Plekhanov says that we shall not be able to secure the Party’s separate representation at the Congress, while the dispatch of a large number of delegates to the Congress would cost a great deal, and anyhow we shall not be able to match the Bundists in this respect, it would be more dignified if the Council alone represented the Party at the Congress.

3 Moreover, we shall hardly have time to contact all the organisations to obtain their mandates.126 In view of this, I motion that in case of necessity the Council should, without contacting the individual organisations, be empowered to represent each of them separately....

First published in full in 1930 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XV the minutes 124 V. I. LENIN

4 REMARK ON THE NEED OF CONTROL OVER THE GNCHAK NEWSPAPER127 MAY 31 (JUNE 13)

Lenin seconds Comrade Martov’s proposal, remarking that there is need for control over the publication of the Gnchak newspaper, which has not always been Social- Democratic.

First published in full in 1930 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XV the minutes

5 MOTION OF AMENDMENT TO MARTOV’S RESOLUTION ON THE RIGHT OF THE C.O. AND THE C.C. TO RECALL THEIR REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE PARTY COUNCIL JUNE 5 (18)

Comrade Martov remarked that he put forward his proposal regardless of the concrete cases and merely to avoid conflicts in the future. That is why I shall not refer to any concrete cases either and if the resolution is designed exclusively to lay down a definite rule for the future, I shall not argue against it. Perhaps it would be better to cut it down and reduce it to the right of the collegium to recall its representatives, deleting the sentence on non-responsibility to the Congress.

First published in full in 1930 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XV the minutes

6 SPEECH ON CO- OPTATION TO THE COMMITTEES AND ON THE C.C.’S RIGHT TO APPOINT NEW MEMBERS JUNE 5 (18) What Martov said was news to me.128 We have quite definite indications that the minority of the Moscow Committee proposed the co-optation of one of its candidates, without, however, connecting this question with factional R.S.D.L.P. COUNCIL. MAY- JUNE 1904 125 differences. Furthermore, speaking on the substance of the matter, I would consider it more correct and more in the spirit of the Rules to regard every fraction as a unit; nevertheless, this question is so insignificant that I agree to vote for Comrade Martov’s resolution.

First published in full in 1930 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XV the minutes

7 SPEECHES ON THE VOTING PROCEDURE IN DECIDING THE QUESTION OF CONVENING THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. JUNE 5 (18)

1 Lenin joins Glebov in regarding the votes of the Tver and the Riga committees as invalid,129 and proposes that the organisations should be regarded as existing not since the issue of their proclamations but since their confirmation by the C.C. In addition, he says, the reference to the date of the Congress should be deleted from Martov’s resolution. The rules of the leagues will determine how many votes they are to have at the Congress. Until their rules are approved, everything should remain as it was at the Second Congress. For example, the Caucasian League130 should have six votes. 2 Comrade Martov and I essentially agree on the right of 9 committees in voting on the Congress. The Baku Commit- tee, I believe, should not have a separate vote because it is a part of the Caucasian League. Inquiries should be made about all the five leagues and then the relevant decisions adopted. 3 In substance I would have nothing against Comrade Martov’s proposal, but it would be formally wrong.131 The Congress has not confirmed them and, consequently, they should be subject to the rule that they may vote for or 126 V. I. LENIN against the Congress only after one year. There is the less reason to discuss this, since the period has almost run out. But we should be very careful about the Caucasian League: they would be deeply mortified if we gave them only two votes instead of the six they had. Moreover, I think that Comrade Martov tends to confuse two points (e and f) of §3 of the Rules, when he proposes that leagues should be given the same status as committees. Thus, I motion that we postpone the question of the Caucasian League and make inquiries through the C.C. 4 I join in Comrade Martov’s opinion concerning the Caucasian League.132 Then there is another juridical question of how the votes of the Council are to be counted in a general count of the votes required for the convocation of a congress. I think two interpretations would be correct: either, in determining the required number of organisations, to make the count without including the five votes of the Council in the overall total of votes belonging to all the organisations, and then to count each vote of the Council separately; or simply to take one-half of the existing number of organisations, without the Council, and to reckon this half as the number required in this case. I believe that it would be most correct to count each of the Council’s votes separately.

First published in full in 1930 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XV the minutes

8 SPEECHES ON THE QUESTION OF PUBLISHING THE MINUTES OF THE PARTY COUNCIL SITTINGS JUNE 5 (18)

1 I absolutely disagree with Comrade Martov. It is desirable to establish for all the sittings of the Council the rule adopted on the minutes of the last sitting.133 This publication will hardly be impeded by the requirements of secrecy and it would be highly important for Party members to DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE MAJORITY’S GENEVA GROUP 127 know what is going on in the Party’s supreme body and the opinions which are held there by both sides.

I am very much surprised by Comrade Glebov’s raising the question of the decision taken at the last sitting and his proposal to review it now. I believe such a review is inadmissible, either formally or morally.

3 No decision on their publication has yet been taken by the C.C. and I merely insist on the C.C.’s right to take such a decision, whenever it deems it necessary to do so.134

First published in full in 1930 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XV the minutes

STATEMENT ON THE TRANSFER OF THE POWERS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. C.C. REPRESENTATIVES ABROAD

Brunnen, July 28, 1904 In view of my departure from Geneva and in view of Comrade Glebov’s sudden departure, I think it is natural that all the business of both C.C. representatives abroad should be handled by a commission of its agents, that is Comrades Olin, Bonch-Bruyevich and Lyadov. C.C. Representative abroad, N. Lenin First published in 1959 Printed from in Vol. 8 of the Fifth Russian the original edition of the Collected Works

DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE MAJORITY’S GENEVA GROUP While by and large subscribing to the Riga Declaration135 as being a quite correct and principled expression of the views and policy of the Party majority of the Second 128 V. I. LENIN

Congress, the meeting deems it necessary to take a definite stand on the new step taken by the C.C. The meeting voices its deep conviction that the C.C. declaration136 (see Iskra No. 72137) strikes a major blow for clanishness as against the Party principle, and is another betrayal of the interests of the Party as a whole, a fresh attempt to corrupt the Party by introducing hypocrisy into Party relations. The meeting brands the opposition by an accountable Party organ to the convocation of a Party congress and its statement that any agitation for the congress is harmful as a disgraceful fact not to be found in the records of any dignified workers’ party. To receive one’s powers at a Party congress from the Party majority and to proclaim this majority’s policy to be a group policy; to speak of peace between the two contending sides and to make a behind-the-scenes deal with the self-styled representatives abroad of one of the sides; hypocritically to extol the “lofty” stand of one’s opponents of yesterday and to begin reconciliation by dismissing the members and agents of the C.C. who dared commit the crime of agitating for a congress—all this is clear evidence that the new C.C. in its new policy has decided to join the C.O. in treating the Party as a nonentity. The meeting vigorously condemns this policy of Bonapartism, urges all Party members to fight resolutely against usurpation and hypocrisy, and demands the full publication of the Council’s minutes and all data on the activity of the central bodies which do not have to be withheld for reasons of secrecy. The meeting calls on all members of the Party sharing the principled views of the majority to support the publishing house set up by Comrade Bonch-Bruyevich138 and to agitate vigorously for the convocation of the Third Congress.

Written later than August 25 (September 7), 1904 First published in 1960 Printed from in Vol. 9 of the Fifth Russian the original edition of the Collected Works PLANS FOR AN ARTICLE “THE PEASANTRY AND S.D.” 129

PLANS FOR AN ARTICLE “THE PEASANTRY AND SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY”139

1 The Peasantry and Social-Democracy

T N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N W Marxist Theory and the Social-Democratic Programme 1. The agrarian question in West-European Social-Democ- racy. David, etc. 2. ”” ”in Russia: both the old Narodniks and the liberals and the Social- ist-Revolutionaries. Practical importance during reforms.

3. Large- and small- scale production. Auhagen Klawki etc. Conclusions concerning maintenance of labourers, cattle and land. Denmark (David). 4. Co-operatives. David, etc. French reactionaries: Rocquigny Goltz Buchenberger. 5. Russia’s specific features. Together with the peasant bourgeoisie against the landowners. ””the urban proletariat against the peasant bourgeoisie. 6. The importance of Social-Democratic agitation among the peasants, especially in periods of political revival. Development of class-consciousness, democratic and Social-Democratic thinking among the peasants.

2 1. Marxist theory (α) on the condition, evolution and role of the peasantry—and (β ) the Social-Democratic programme. Closely bound up. 130 V. I. LENIN

2. The urgency of the peasant question. The agrarian pro - grammes of the Social-Democratic parties: the French (petty-bourgeois character. Engels’s critique140), the German (1895. Breslau, opportunist and revolutionary wings), Russian... (Critics. “David.”). (Bulgakov).... 3. It is the Russian agrarian programme of the Social- Democrats that especially distinguishes them from the Narodniks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries. 4. The principles of Marxist theory concerning the peasantry (cf. The Development of Capitalism,* quotations from Marx). (1) the role of large-scale production; (2) the peasant’s petty-bourgeois character; (3) his past (—) and future (&). Add K. Kautsky, The Social Revolution. 5. Large- and small-scale production in agriculture....

Stumpfe. Souchon. From MS.: Hecht, Auhagen, Klawki, Baden, German statistics.... 6. Conclusion: the importance of the maintenance of labourers, cattle and land. 7. Add: Huschke, Haggard, Baudrillart, Lecouteux, Prus- sian Inquiry, Bavarian and Hessen inquiries, Hubach. 8. Debt. Prussian statistics. 9. Co-operatives. General statement of the question. Rocquigny, Goltz, Buchenberger, Haggard. Statistical data: German and Russian (communal lease). Denmark. 10. Conclusions concerning the West. 11. Russia’s specific features.... On two flanks. The peasant bourgeoisie and the rural proletariat. Relics of serfdom, and the struggle against the bourgeoisie.

* See present edition, Vol. 3.—Ed. PLAN FOR A PROPAGANDA TALK ON CRISES 131 12.Together with the peasant bourgeoisieP connect against the landowners, etc.M with ””the urban proletariatcut-off against the bourgeoisie.Q lands. 13.Practical importance of the agrarian question in the possibly immediate future: Exposure of class contradictions in the countryside. Democratic and Social-Democratic agitation and propaganda.

||| |||

||||

Written not earlier than September 1904 First published in 1938Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXXIIthe original

PLAN FOR A PROPAGANDA TALK ON CRISES141

P 1. What is a crisis?—Stoppage in industry, unemployment, N hitch in marketing, overproduction. N 1. α) What is an industrial crisis? N b) Stoppage of factories, hitch in marketing, bank- M ruptcies, unemployment. N γ) Overproduction.... N 2. Overproduction, underconsumption*. (Ela- N borate the contradiction.) Q 2. α) Overproduction, and underconsumption*. 3. How can that be? (α ) Division of contemporary society into two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. (β) Production for the market. P 4. Competition, its international character, drive for mar- N kets, gigantic growth of production. M 5. Reduction in demand for living labour: intensification, machines, women and children, N skilled and unskilled workers. Q 5 bis: Supply grows, marketing tight.

* These words are in English in the original.—Ed. 132 V. I. LENIN

6. Periodical crises, their regularity, their inevitability under capitalism. (Illusions in time of prosperity.) 8. 7.* Reserve army. Calamities of unemployment. Bondage: right to live only when producing profit. (percentage of old beggars): {3-2} .... 7. 8. The effect of the crisis on the workers and petty proprietors. Ruin, poverty: dawning socialist awareness.... Meeting of unemployed in Britain in 1889.142 9. Crisis and capitalism. Crisis and the development of large-scale production—trusts, etc. The tasks of socialism. The socialist revolution: Social-Democratic labour parties. Examples of large-scale production: Morozov: Steam-powered mills: Iron and steel:

Written in the autumn of 1906 First published in 1959 Printed from in the magazine Voprosy Istorii the original KPSS No. 3

PLAN FOR THREE TALKS ON THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC PROGRAMME

α) Contemporary system. β) Socialist aims and the class struggle. γ) Struggle against the autocracy. for 2-3 hours Divide α-γ into three talks Plan for first talk

T N N N N N N N N W on the Social-Democratic programme

T N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N W T 1. The struggle of the workers against their masters to N improve their condition is world-wide. Strikes— N socialism. What does this mean? * Point 7 was subsequently changed to point 8 and vice versa.— Ed. NOTES BY THE VPERYOD EDITORIAL BOARD 133

αM 2.Contemporary society is arranged as follows: it is N divided into working people and exploiters. Two N classes. Property-owners and proletarians. Who U maintains whom? 3.Workers’ plight: low wages. Malnutrition. Unem- ployment. Female labour. Child labour. “Degenera- tion of the nation.” Prostitution. Social and political oppression. P 4.In large-scale production, workers unite to fight N against their masters. Under capitalism, the whole N of society is more tightly knit, making possible N a transition to socialist production. Example of N the masters being quite useless in big factories and N estates. βM 5.Socialist revolution=land and factories handed N over to the workers. Socialist production, short N working hours, etc. N 6.Demands on modern society to facilitate the workers’ N struggle and safeguard them against degeneration: N labour reforms, 8-hour working day, weekly payment Q of wages, living quarters, medical aid, schools, etc. P 7.Political demands. What is an autocracy? Struggle N for political freedom. (Constitution—republic, free- γM dom of speech, assembly, etc., etc.) N 8.Revolutionary parties and their role in the working- class struggle. Narodnaya Volya and Social- Q Democracy.

Written in the autumn of 1904 First published in 1930Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XVthe original

NOTE BY THE VPERYOD EDITORIAL BOARD TO THE LETTER OF THEIR ST. PETERSBURG CORRESPONDENT143

Letter from St. Petersburg ( pp. 1-6*) From the Editorial Board. The conclusion at which the St. Petersburg correspondent arrives is completely in line * The pages of the letter.—Ed. 134 V. I. LENIN with our own in the article: “Time to Call a Halt!” (Vperyod No. 1).* The Mensheviks have shown themselves to be completely unwilling to work together, submitting to the majority, and now that the institutions set up by the Second Congress have been disorganised and they have frustrated the convocation of a third congress, the Party has no other means of fighting them except a break. The earlier and more complete this break with the disorganisers, the....** From the Editorial Board. The conclusion of our St. Peters- burg comrade fully bears out the correctness of our own conclusion (Vperyod No. 1, “Time to Call a Halt!”). We advise all committees and organisations of the majority to exercise firmness in removing the disorganisers as soon as possible so as to have a chance to work, instead of engaging in squabbles.

Written after December 22, 1904 (January 4, 1905) First published in 1934Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXVIthe original

OUTLINE OF THESES FOR AN ARTICLE “HOW THEY DEFEND THEMSELVES”144 How They Defend Themselves 1) Two replies to Lenin’s pamphlet on The Zemstvo Campaign and “Iskra”’s Plan***—the Editorial Board’s and Plekha- nov’s. This and is also curious (Plekhanov is nominally on the Board), but the distinction between their replies is extremely interesting. Plekhanov defends an incorrect stand very cleverly and cautiously. The Editorial Board, not cleverly. Plekhanov says nothing at all about either 1) Starover’s resolution and its connection with the Iskra plan, or 2) the “higher type of mobilisation”. Ergo, what Plekhanov passes over in silence is the essence of Iskra’s mistake (Starover’s resolution is the beginning of the mistake, its * See present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 35-39.—Ed. ** Here the MS. breaks off. The text is crossed out by Lenin.—Ed. *** See present edition, Vol. 7, pp. 495-516.—Ed. OUTLINE OF THESES 135 starting-point. The final point—the consideration of the “higher” type). The Editorial Board emphasises the connection of its stand with Starover’s resolution, and comes out for the idea of the “higher type”. Both the Editorial Board and Plekhanov make a very weak stand for the talk on panic (clearly retreating and backtracking). Plekhanov keeps harping on the contradiction between the old and the new Lenin145 in an effort to prove that the Iskra Editorial Board was acting according to the old Lenin. Plekhanov tries to create the impression that Lenin is now opposed to demonstrations before the Zemstvo men and is against dictating to them a “positive programme of action”. This is an absurdity and a distortion.

What were my theses against Iskra? 1) The talk of panic is vulgar and irrelevant. The Editorial P Reply? Plekhanov on the Tambovites P 146 Board is M (ha-ha!) M almost being on the anarchists (where?) ” robbed: Q Editorial Board’s “obstruction” Q “superfluous”. 2) “Agreements” with the liberals must be determined by the actual common struggle and not by “promises”. Nil—Plekhanov. 3) Starover’s terms rejected. (The Editorial Board makes a very weak case, with a virtual admission.) 4) “New type.” Editorial Board—schwach.* Plekhanov— nil. On the question of uprising see Iskra No. 6?. Leading.** “Purely utopian views” on preparations for an uprising. “Are beginning to manifest themselves”....

Written between December 28, 1904 and January 11 (January 10 and 24), 1905 First published in 1926 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany V the original

* Bad.—Ed. ** This word is in English in the original.—Ed. 136 V. I. LENIN

STATEMENT BY THE GROUP OF FOUNDERS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. LIBRARY AT GENEVA

The group which initiated the establishment of the R.S.D.L.P. library at Geneva has unanimously decided to hand it over to the Majority Committees’ Bureau147 for the general management of the library pending a decision by the Third Party Congress.

Written in late December 1904 and early January 1905 First published in 1934 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXVI the original 137

QYPU -QYQP

PLAN FOR AN ARTICLE “1895 AND 1905 (SHORT PARALLEL)” 148

1895 and 1905

T N N N N N N W (Short Parallel) There are here eigentlich* two topics: 1) the parallel of growing work; 2) present-day organisational tasks. They should be dealt with in two separate articles. 1. Compare the scope, proportions and forms of Social- Democratic work then and now. 2. Scope: only circles then. Scarcely the first beginnings of mass agitation. Propaganda very heavy and academic. The Social-Democrats making their way among the Narodnaya Volya movement, the Narodnoye Pravo149 movement, etc. 3. Today. The Party. Ordinary mass agitation. Open political action in the street. Revolutionary epoch. 4. Forms. 10-16 persons (committee). 20-30 workers’ circles. Maximum, 100-150 ties. “Readings.” Self-education— the crux. 5. Today. The organisation has grown to many “storeys” St. Petersburg and Odessa committee—districts—organisers’ meetings (central circles)—groups, and then “the centre” and the bureau. Something like five new storeys . 6. “A Letter to a Comrade”** was written at a time when the new storeys were being put together and the Econo- mists slowed down their growth. The ideas advocated in “A Letter to a Comrade” have now virtually been translated into life. * Strictly speaking.—Ed. ** See present edition, Vol. 6, pp. 229-50.—Ed. 138 V. I. LENIN

7. New tasks: γ) Abundance of storeys has brought up a new section of Party workers, Party members. Their participation should be formalised. (1) Information— resolutions—polls—direct ties with the Central Organ. (2) Elective principle? (3) Indication or selection of candidates for co-optation? 8. Another and perhaps even more important task: the work of adding new horizontal storeys should be supplemented by the work of new “vertical”, you might say, ways of influence. That is: the growth of the movement makes it necessary and possible to supplement this current work on the storeys by the upper storeys addressing the mass in new forms of massive meetings. “Short meetings” and “mass rallies”, as a natural product of work on many “storeys”, of themselves lead up to that higher form which prevails abroad and will triumph here le lendemain de la révolution,* namely: to the “mass rallies” as the principal means of political influence on the proletariat and its Social-Democratic education. 9. Of course, this makes the “storeys” equally necessary. They will (always?) be necessary. The thing is to “supplement” and not to “substitute”....

Written before January 9 (22), 1905 First published in 1926 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany V the original

A MILITANT AGREEMENT FOR THE UPRISING AND THE FORMATION OF A COMBAT COMMITTEE

PLAN:150 1) Motive behind agreement 2) Its aims 3) Programme (1) overthrow of autocracy (2) provisional revolutionary government (3) arming of the people (4) Constituent Assembly (5) revolutionary peasant committees.

* The day after the revolution.—Ed. RECORD OF SPEECHES AT THE GENEVA BOLSHEVIK CLUB 139

4)Formation of an interim combat committee for the purpose of (1)collecting money (2)clarifying manpower (3)informing masses of Russian workers about the agreement and broadly discussing means of implementation (4)preparing for a Russian conference to form a Russian Combat Committee. 5)The task of the Combat Committee: co-ordination of measures in preparing for an uprising. q in view of the importance of total solidarity and maintenance of independence by each party. 6)The Combat Committee’s attitude to terrorism. 7)Call to all socialists and all revolutionary democrats. 5bis The Combat Committee issues an appeal only on questions entirely within its programme and not otherwise than with a reservation about the Party’s independence in every case.

Written in February-March 1905 First published in 1926Printed from in Lenin Miscellany Vthe original

RECORD OF SPEECHES AT THE GENEVA BOLSHEVIK CLUB151 MINUTES OF MARCH 5, 1905

I Lenin. Proposes that all the results of the section’s work should be made public—above all that Stepanov should submit his report in writing, and also the minutes. A general summary of these minutes should be handed over to the Congress; they could provide many practical indications during the work of the Congress. Stepanov’s report is regrettably much too abstract in character. If exact conclusions in the form of resolutions are to be made from the reports, they must be more concrete. With that end in view I propose a poll among comrades in Russia 140 V. I. LENIN and abroad, specifying that they should give precise answers to the questions stated (yes, no, so many). A picture of their work, e.g., the town in which one worked, the questions one decided at meetings, etc. While the summarised conclusions could yield something, I repeat that no precise conclusions could be drawn from them. That is why I propose that the circle should set about working out a questionnaire to be circulated among comrades in Russia and abroad, for concise replies to all questions. If we have at our disposal raw material of this kind (if 100-200 comrades reply), the Congress could use it for precise conclusions. I reiterate my proposals: first, a summary of all the minutes and also the minutes themselves should be submitted to the Congress; second, a start should be made on drawing up a questionnaire. This should be done right away, without any delay, and I propose that all work in the section should be dropped in favour or putting the minutes in order and writing a report on them for the Congress.

II Lenin. Now that the announcement of the convocation of the Third Congress is out, the work of the sections has taken on a different character. The sections have now been working for two months, but very little has been done, all things considered: the minutes are not all there, and there are no reports; we should make haste with this, so that all these efforts should be of practical importance and not go to waste, i.e., all this should be placed before the Congress. In order to submit the minutes as soon as possible, I propose that the whole circle should set about helping the secretaries. I repeat that unless the circle completes this work, all its efforts threaten to remain within the circle itself, whereas they could help to work out organisational plans. Furthermore, I propose that we should start right away on working out a questionnaire— we must make haste with all this, time does not wait. The Congress may take place very soon. The best thing is to entrust the working out of a questionnaire to a special committee. NOTES BY THE VPERYOD EDITORIAL BOARD 141

III Lenin. I have no objections to Comrade Olga’s proposal. As for my experience, I do not believe I have any, in view of the rapid change of events and conditions of work. I did draw up a questionnaire, but it was much too general. I propose that experienced comrades should be elected to a committee for drawing up the questionnaire, and that this business should be accelerated to the utmost.

First published in 1934Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXVIthe minutes

NOTE BY THE VPERYOD EDITORIAL BOARD TO A RESOLUTION BY A GROUP OF WORKERS OF THE ST. PETERSBURG METALWORKS152

From the Editors. We publish this resolution by the worker- comrades as a characteristic manifestation of the mood that in certain circumstances may sway a considerable section of the fighting proletariat.* A Party split—especially a secret split—undoubtedly inflicts countless calamities on the labour movement. The above-mentioned Kharkov resolution153 shows that there are Mensheviks in Russia who are much more con- scientious about their Party duty than the comrades abroad. This is also shown by the new declaration issued by the C.C. together with the Majority Committees’ Bureau.154 Let us once again wish success to this latest attempt at unification.

Vperyod No. 14, Printed from April 2 (March 30), 1905 the Vperyod text verified with the original

* The first sentence was written by M. S. Olminsky.—Ed. 142 V. I. LENIN

THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P.155 APRIL 1ù - ùû (APRIL ù5 - MAY 10), 1905

1 DRAFT RESOLUTIONS OF THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE FOR CONVENING THE THIRD CONGRESS ON THE REPRESENTATION OF CERTAIN ORGANISATIONS156

Caucasus The Organising Committee, having examined the question of the Caucasian delegation on the basis of the facts published in various writings and the testimony of witnesses, comrades from the Caucasus, has arrived at this unanimous decision: 1. Among the votes at the Congress, it is necessary and solely correct to reckon the 8 votes of the Caucasian delegation, because back in the autumn of 1903, the C.C. approved the Rules of the Caucasian Union Committee, and under these Rules, the Caucasian Union Committee, as a Union Committee, was allowed 8 votes at the Congress. 2. As for the contradictory statements by Comrade Glebov in the Council and the Council’s decision in May 1904 to regard temporarily, pending clarification of the question, as votes those of the four separate Caucasian committees (Baku, Batum, Tiflis and Imeretia and Mingrelia), the Organising Committee cannot consider this statement of Glebov’s and the Council’s decision an obstacle to the adoption of the conclusion stated in §1, since Comrade Glebov has clearly shown himself to be uninformed, which is why he unwittingly misled the Council. 3. Considering it unquestionable that there are now three delegates from the Caucasus with six votes, the O.C. states that Comrade Leonov, member of the Caucasian Union Committee, declares the following concerning the fourth delegate with two votes: the Caucasian Union Committee intended to allow the Batum Committee to approve this fourth delegate. When the Batum Committee gave a vague and evasive reply on this matter, the Caucasian Union Committee, at a sitting attended by Leonov, expressed the wish that in the absence of a special delegate from THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 143

Batum at the Congress the votes of the fourth delegate should be transferred to Comrade Kamenev (Yuri). 4. Stating this, the O.C. leaves it to the Congress itself to decide on the question of a fourth delegate from the Caucasian Union Committee. Kremenchug Concerning the powers of the Kremenchug Committee the Organising Committee declares: 1) The Kremenchug Committee was approved by the Central Committee only in August 1904, according to Comrade Mark, a member of the C.C., who attended the meeting of the FROMC.C. at which MARX the approval took place. 2) The Kremenchug Committee does not appear on the Party Council’s list ofTO 33 empowered MAO organisations, which was published in Iskra No. 89. On the strength of the above stated, the O.C. decides: not to regard the Kremenchug Committee among the full- fledged organisations with the right of vote at the present Congress. Yekaterinoslav The Organising Committee, having heard the report of Comrade Morozov, NOTdelegate of FORthe Yekaterinoslav Majority Committee, and the written communication of Comrade Yevgeny, member of the old committee in Yekaterinoslav, reached the followingCOMMERCIAL unanimous decision: The Organising Committee does not see any grounds to consider the DISTRIBUTION present Yekaterinoslav Majority Committee less legitimate than the Minority Committee either in formal terms or in terms of succession and ties with local workers. However, in view of the fact that the O.C. has no opportunity of hearing the explanations of the other side, it does not adopt a decision on the vote of the delegate from the Yekaterinoslav Majority Committee, leaving it to the Congress itself to decide on the matter.

Concerning the powers of the Kazan and Kuban committees, the O.C. has failed to reach any decision, as the votes of the C.C. and the M.C.B. were split. 144 V. I. LENIN

The M.C.B. believes that these committees cannot be recognised as having the necessary powers because these committees did not appear on the list of committees approved until April 1, 1905, at the Council’s sitting in May 1904 (delegates Lenin and Glebov from the C.C.). Even if the Kazan and Kuban committees were approved by the Central Committee after May 1904, they will at any rate be entitled to representation only after one year. Besides, these committees could not have been approved at the general meeting of the C.C. in July 1904, because the minutes of this meeting were in their entirety delivered by Glebov to Lenin abroad, and they contained no information concerning the approval of the Kazan and Kuban committees. Finally, nothing was said about it either at the August or September sitting of the C.C., which was attended by C.C. member Comrade Mark. The C.C. believes that since these committees were inserted in the Iskra list, apparently on behalf of the Party Council, we have no ground for recognising these committees as lacking the required powers.

Written not later than April 11 (24) Published in 1905 in the book Printed from Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. the original Polny tekst protokolov (The Regular Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. Full Text of the Proceedings), Central Committee publication, Geneva

2 O.C. DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CONGRESS157 Concerning the point of the agreement between the C.C. and the M.C.B. under which the Congress shall open in the presence of three-quarters of the delegates of the Russian committees, the O.C. resolves: Both sides, making up the O.C., see this point as meaning that both the C.C. and the M.C.B. should have taken the most vigorous measures to achieve full representation at the Congress and also to guarantee to the Party that the C.C. and the M.C.B. have set themselves the aim of organising an all-Party and not a factional congress. This point THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 145 of the agreement was not at all meant to offset the effect of the paragraph of the Party’s Rules under which a congress is valid in the presence of one-half of the total number of votes. As for the plenitude of representation at the Congress, all measures have been taken on that score. There is no news only from the Astrakhan and the Crimean committees. The selection of delegates and their dispatch abroad (in two instances, transfer of mandates from the Kuban Committee to comrades abroad, Parvus and a person to be appointed by the Iskra Editorial Board) have been carried out by the Don, Gornozavodsk, Kiev, Kuban, Tver, Kharkov, Smolensk, Siberian and Yekaterinoslav committees. Together with the delegates available from 19 committees, we would have, with these 9 committees, a total of 28 committees, that is, more than three-quarters out of 34 committees (the figure of 34 is the maximum number of empowered organisations initially on the O.C. list). If 9 delegates from the said committees have failed to turn up at the Congress, despite the fact that they were given the corresponding mandates from the committees and arrived abroad, their absence is due to no fault of the O.C., but to the fact that all the efforts of the O.C. to achieve full representation at the Congress were frustrated by the illegal resistance of the three members of the Party Council.

Written not later than April 11 (24) Published in 1905 in the book Printed from Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. the original Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva

3 SPEECH ON THE CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE REPORT CONCERNING THE KAZAN COMMITTEE’S REPRESENTATION AT THE CONGRESS158 APRIL 13 (26) References are being made to a statement of mine.* The Kazan man, who has arrived, said that he may possibly have been elected. He should be invited as a member of the

* See p. 150 of this volume.—Ed. 146 V. I. LENIN committee. I find the end of the Credentials Committee’s resolution strange and propose its correction.

First published in 1937 in the book Printed from Trety syezd R.S.D.R.P. Protokoly the text (The Third Congress of the of the book R.S.D.L.P. Proceedings)

4 AMENDMENT TO A CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE PROPOSAL ON THE KAZAN COMMITTEE’S REPRESENTATION AT THE CONGRESS APRIL 13 (26)

The following amendment is motioned: “Not as a delegate, but as a member of the committee not represented at the Congress but favouring the Congress.”

First published in 1931 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XVI the original

5 SPEECH ON THE QUESTION OF A DEBATE ON THE O.C. REPORT APRIL 13 (26)

I propose that we should take into consideration the statement by Comrade Sosnovsky and others on the desirability of limiting the debate on the O.C. report to the formal aspect only. Comrade Andreyev’s resolution fails to achieve its aim.159 The comrades wanted to have a discussion only on the legality of convening the Congress and not in substance. To discuss the report in substance is equivalent to discussing the Party crisis. The bureau will keep speakers within the limits of a discussion on the legality of convening the Congress.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1905 THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 147

6 DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE DEBATE ON THE O.C. REPORT The Congress shall at present debate the O.C. report only from the standpoint of the Congress’s validity.* Motioned on April 13 (26) Published in 1905 in the book Printed from Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. the text Polny tekst protokolov,of the book Central Committee publication, Geneva

7 DRAFT AGENDA OF THE THIRD PARTY CONGRESS160 A) Tactical questions. 1. Armed uprising. [2. Participation of Social-Democracy in a provisional revolutionary government.]** 2. Preparations for open political action by Social - Democracy. 3. Social-Democracy’s attitude to the government’s policy on the eve of the revolution, during the revolution and after it. 4. Attitude to the peasant movement. B) Attitude to other parties and trends. 5. Attitude to the splinter section of the Russian Social- Democratic Labour Party. 6. Attitude to non-Russian Social-Democratic parties and organisations in Russia. 7. Attitude to the liberals. 8. Attitude to the Socialist-Revolutionaries.

* The Minutes Committee recorded the end of the draft resolution as follows: “... the validity of the Congress and its final constitution, and not from the standpoint of the Party crisis”.—Ed. ** The text in brevier in square brackets is crossed out in the MS.—Ed. 148 V. I. LENIN

C) Party organisation. 9. Party Rules. 10. Relations between workers and intellectuals in Party organisations. D) Internal Party work. 11. Delegates’ reports. 12. Improvement of propaganda and agitation. [13. May Day.]* 14. Election of functionaries. 15. Procedure governing the publication of minutes and entry into office of new institutions.

Motioned on April 13 (26) First published in 1934 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXVI the original 8 SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE CONGRESS AGENDA APRIL 13 (26) I would have no objection to the proposal of Comrades Mikhailov, Voinov and Zimin.161 But there is a danger that the Congress will overdo the agenda debate. The agenda at German Social-Democratic congresses runs to 5 or 6 items; we had up to 25 at the Second Congress. There is already a danger of our debate getting out of hand. I propose that we adopt as a basis the agenda with a better breakdown.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1905 9 SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE CONGRESS STANDING ORDERS APRIL 13 (26) It is dangerous to substitute committees for Congress sittings. The committees discuss many interesting questions * The text in brevier in square buckets is crossed out in the MS.—Ed. THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 149 which are then lost and do not get into the minutes. The committees do not have enough time for serious work, and it is not desirable to extend it to the detriment of the Congress work. It would be well to elect a resolutions committee right away, so as to give our work some direction at least. We also need a committee for examining the reports. I doubt whether we need organisational, agrarian and armed uprising committees. We have the old Rules, there is Ivanov’s draft, there is Comrade N. F.’s opinion,162 there is quite enough material.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1905

10 SPEECH MOTIONING A DRAFT RESOLUTION ON ELECTION OF COMMITTEES TO EXAMINE DELEGATES’ REPORTS AND TO DRAFT RESOLUTIONS APRIL 13 (26) I motion this resolution: “The Congress shall elect: 1) a committee for examining the delegates’ reports and preparing them for communication to the Congress; 2) a committee for appointing rapporteurs and drafting resolutions on the principal items of the agenda.” The speeches of delegates have convinced me that it is the only way we can work fruitfully. If we adopt the system of a general debate and subsequent discussion in committee, the result will be similar to that at the Second Congress. Care must be taken to have the fullest possible publication of the Congress deliberations for the purpose of giving the Party the best information. In view of the atmosphere of suspicion surrounding the Congress, it is especially necessary to give our debates the greatest possible publicity and the fullest record in the minutes.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1905 150 V. I. LENIN

11 STATEMENTS TO THE CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE OF THE CONGRESS

1 To the Credentials Committee of the Congress

At the sitting of the O.C. on April 24, 1905, I forgot to motion a proposal to invite Comrade Arnatsky (real [NB] name), a member of the Kazan Committee, to attend the Congress with voice but no vote.163 I request the Credentials Committee to examine this proposal. Comrade Arnatsky is abroad, in France, and told me he was ready to attend the Congress at his own expense. He will soon be going to Russia and could swiftly report to his committee on the Congress. Despite all its efforts, the Organising Committee was unable to contact the Kazan Committee or obtain a reply from Kazan. There is therefore almost no hope of the Kazan Committee taking part in the Congress. Our efforts abroad to contact Kazan from over here have likewise failed, and there has been no reply to our letters. Arnatsky has also failed to get in touch with Kazan from over here. In view of the impossibility of having a delegate from the Kazan Committee to attend the Congress, should we not invite Comrade Arnatsky, as a member of the committee, to attend with voice but no vote? Lenin Motioned on April 13 (26)

2 To the Credentials Committee

At the O.C. sitting I reported on the written request from Comrade Filatov (real name) for admission to the Congress with voice but no vote. Comrade Filatov is the author of the articles on the uprising in Vperyod, signed V. S. For the Congress he has prepared a letter and a pamphlet- report: “Application of Tactics and Fortifications to a Popu- lar Uprising” (in a suitcase left in Boulogne). I request THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 151 that Comrades Belsky and Voinov who had worked with Comrade Filatov in Paris164 should be asked to give him a reference. Lenin Motioned on April 14 (27) First published in 1931 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XVI the original 12 SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE’S REPORT165 APRIL 14 (27) I think it would be wrong to have the Congress confirm the organisations immediately. I am opposed to the giving of a vote. I do not agree with Comrade Kamsky about a coup d’état. Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1905 13 DRAFT RESOLUTION ON CONFIRMATION OF THE KAZAN AND KUBAN COMMITTEES166 The Congress resolves not to count the Kazan and the Kuban committees in constituting the Congress, but to confirm them as full-fledged committees for the future. Motioned on April 14 (27) Published in 1905 in the book Printed from Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. the original Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva 14 DRAFT RESOLUTION ON PROCEDURE GOVERNING VOTING AT THE CONGRESS167 The Congress shall henceforth conduct all voting under §7 of the Regulations, separating the votes from the voices. Motioned on April 14 (27) Published in 1905 in the book Printed from Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. the text Polny tekst protokolov,of the book Central Committee publication, Geneva 152 V. I. LENIN

15 REMARKS ON RUMYANTSEV’S DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE QUESTION OF OPEN POLITICAL ACTION BY THE R.S.D.L.P. I think the resolution should be reworded as follows: Motives: (1) stating that under the pressure of the revolutionary movement there is an actual beginning of open action by the political parties, etc. (2) that in this the liberals have gone especially far, their actual privilege (Schmidt’s point 1). (3) that there is a tremendous urge among the workers for the same thing (Schmidt’s point 2). —conclusions: (1) no occasion should be missed for open action, the workers to be organised into an independent force in the course of the action itself; (2) even the slightest legal forms should be used in an effort to get the legal labour organisations under Social-Democratic influence; (3) the idea should be spread in all labour organisations and among the broadest possible masses of the need of taking practical measures to set up, alongside our secret apparatus, an apparatus for open political action. [&0) The beginning of the actual winning of freedom of action. 1) The working masses strive for open action. 2) Better 2) The liberals are making intensive use and are gain- 1) ing a preponderance. 3) The need to prepare for a possible transition in the near future from the usual, exclusively secret forms of activity to open forms. Resolves: 1) no occasion should be missed ... open action to be worked out by separate organisations on the spot 2) the use of even partial legal forms of organisation in an effort to subject them to Social-Democratic influence.] * Written between April 16 and 19 (April 29 and May 2), 1905 First published in 1926 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany V the original * The text in brevier in square brackets is crossed out in the MS.—Ed. THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 153

16 THESES FOR A RESOLUTION ON THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS’ PARTICIPATION IN A PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT

Motives of the Resolution: 1) The necessity of political freedom and a democratic republic. [2) The existence of a revolutionary bourgeois and petty -bourgeois democracy able and beginning to fight for it. 3) The necessity of the proletariat’s support for revolutionary democracy....]* 4) The necessity of a provisional revolutionary government for the complete overthrow of the autocracy and actual guarantees of freedom for a constituent assembly. [5) Recognition by revolutionary Social-Democracy of revolutionary action not only from below, but also from above. 6) The necessity of Social-Democracy’s participation in a provisional revolutionary government in the event of a complete victory for the revolution, where it directs the uprising.]* 7) The bourgeois-democratic character of the revolution and the necessity of the proletariat’s taking an independent position as distinct from bourgeois democracy. [8) The existence of an organised Social-Democratic Labour Party capable of open organisation (with broad participation of the workers) and control over the Party’s authorised agents;]*

Resolutive Section of the Resolution on Social-Democratic Participation in a Provisional Revolutionary Government 1) The propaganda and agitation for the idea of a provisional revolutionary government as a necessary compo- nent part of a victorious revolution. 2) Discussion of the whole of our minimum programme at workers’ meetings not only from a general standpoint, as * The text in brevier in square brackets is crossed out in the MS.—Ed. 154 V. I. LENIN

we all have discussed and should discuss the maximum programme, but from the standpoint of the possibility of its full and immediate implementation. 3) Recognition that in the event of a victorious popular uprising the Social-Democrats may take part in a provisional revolutionary government together with the revolutionary bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeois democrats for the purpose of conducting a relentless struggle against all counter-revolutionary attempts, for the purpose of completely clearing the democratic soil in Russia, for the purpose of using all the means ensured by the government for the broadest possible organisation of the working class. 4) Necessary condition of such participation—control by the Social-Demo- These are subjec- cratic Labour Party over its author- tive conditions. ised representatives in the government What about the and undeviating protection of the objective ones? for independent working-class party, the purpose of car- hostile to all manner of bourgeois rying on a relentless democracy in its striving for a full struggle against socialist revolution. the counter-revolution. P. 3. 5) At any rate, regardless of whether or not the Social-Democrats succeed in taking part in a provisional revolu- P P tionary government, the idea must M NB Armed M be spread in the working class of the Q proletariat Q necessity of independent workers’ revolutionary organisations to exercise control over every revolutionary government and to exert pressure on it.

Written before April 18 (May 1), 1905 First published in 1926 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany V the original THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 155

17 SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION ON THE QUESTION OF OPEN POLITICAL ACTION BY THE R.S.D.L.P.168 APRIL 19 (MAY 2) Comrade Sergeyev is wrong. We have before us the integrated question of changing the character of Social- Democratic activity, and that is what the resolution states.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1905

18 SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE GOVERNMENT’S TACTICS ON THE EVE OF A REVOLUTION APRIL 19 (MAY 2)

1 I agree with Comrade Belsky’s opinion.169 We tend to minimise the concept of revolution when using this word in relation to the mere wresting of a few paltry rights.

2 I agree that “revolutionary way” is an expression for a more vigorous conduct of struggle, but this tends to minimise the concept of revolution. I propose either that we replace it by the words “regardless of the law”, or that after “revolutionary way” we delete the words “minimal programme”, as it could be taken to mean that we want to carry through the whole revolution in this way.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1905 156 V. I. LENIN

19 RESOLUTION ON THE ATTITUDE TO THE PEASANT MOVEMENT 1) Whereas the currently growing peasant movement, though spontaneous and politically unconscious, is nonethe- less inevitably directed against the existing political order and against all the remnants of the serf-owning system in general; 2) Whereas it is one of the tasks of Social -Democracy to support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order; 3) Whereas, in view of the aforesaid, the Social-Demo- crats must strive to purge the revolutionary-democratic content of the peasant movement of all manner of reactionary admixtures, developing the peasants’ revolutionary class- consciousness, and consistently putting through their democratic demands; 4) Whereas the Social-Democratic Party, as the party of the proletariat, must in all cases and under all circumstances work steadfastly for the independent organisation of the rural proletariat and clarify for this class the irreconcilable antagonisms between its interests and those of the peasant bourgeoisie; —The Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party instructs all Party organisations a) to carry on propaganda among broad sections of the people explaining that Social-Democracy sets itself the task of giving the most vigorous support to all revolutionary measures of the peasantry capable of improving its condition, including the confiscation of landlord, government, church, monastery and crown lands; b) as a practical slogan for agitation among the peasantry and as a means of instilling the utmost political consciousness into the peasant movement, to urge the necessity for the immediate organisation of revolutionary peasant committees, with the aim of carrying through all revolutionary-democratic reforms in order to release the peasantry from the tyranny of the police, the officials and the landlords; THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 157

c) with the aim of disorganising the autocracy and maintaining the revolutionary onslaught against it, to urge the peasantry and the rural proletariat to engage in all possible political demonstrations, collectively refuse to pay duties and taxes, to perform military service or obey the decrees and orders of the government and its agents; d) to strive for the independent organisation of the rural proletariat, for its integration with the urban proletariat under the banner of the Social-Democratic Party, and for the election of its representatives to the peasant committees.

Motioned on April 20 (May 3 ) Published in 1905 in the book Printed from Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. the original Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva

20 TO THE PRESIDIUM OF THE CONGRESS170

I consider it timely to adopt a resolution (on the attitude of the workers to the intellectuals). Lenin Written on April 20 (May 3), 1905 First published in 1934 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXVI the original

21 OUTLINE OF A SPEECH ON THE QUESTION OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN WORKERS AND INTELLECTUALS IN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC ORGANISATIONS171

Outline of my speech on May 3 (15th sitting). I. It is not right to say (as Vlasov did) that in our country it is the intellectuals that are mainly the exponents of revolutionary Social-Democratic ideas. II. It is not right to say (as Vlasov did) that the elective principle will not make for better information of the outlying districts, etc. 158 V. I. LENIN

III. Vlasov said that it is the intellectuals that are at the head (of splits and oppositions). This is confirmed by Latyshev, Lyadov, Kramolnikov, etc. IV. Workers must be brought into the committees.

Written on April 20 (May 3), 1905 First published in 1926 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany V the original

22 SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE PARTY RULES172 APRIL 21 (MAY 4)

1 Comrade Kitayev’s proposal is more practical, for under it the convocation of an emergency congress demands a quorum equal to one-half of the number of votes at the preceding congress.

2 On the contrary, things are facilitated by the establishment of the specified number required to convene a congress. The required number of votes is established after each congress. One addition only is necessary, and that is a note under which the list of committees confirmed by the C.C. shall be published in the C.O.

3 The list of newly confirmed organisations shall be published immediately in the Party C.O., with a statement of the time of their confirmation by the C.C.

4 I am in favour of the initial wording of §6 carried Vperyod,173 as otherwise there is an irregularity. THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 159

5 I agree with the opinion of Comrade Petrov and the others. Comrade Belsky’s proposal should be inserted in the note.174

6 In the interests of the C.O. I must come out in favour of Comrade Kitayev’s amendment. With the newspaper issued weekly, there is need to be informed of developments and have sufficient quantities of material.175

7 I favour unanimous co-optation.176 The C.C. is not big and for the sake of positive effort and political direction, we must ensure that its members are like-minded.

8 I agree with Comrade Kuznetsov: §13 should be deleted from the Rules and the corresponding resolution tabled by Comrade Belsky in the Bureau adopted.177 Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1905

23 SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE DRAFT RESOLUTION ON GENERAL MEETINGS OF THE C.C.178 APRIL 21 (MAY 4) I favour Maximov’s resolution. If it is difficult to get together once in three months, the period could be extended to four months. The C.C. member abroad must know everything and take part in deciding on the most important matters. If there is difficulty for all to get together, a meeting does not have to be full. First published in 1924 in the book Printed from Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. the text 1905 goda. Polny tekst protokolov of the book 160 V. I. LENIN

24 SPEECH ON THE CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE KAZAN COMMITTEE’S REPRESENTATION179 APRIL 22 (MAY 5)

Lenin makes a reference to the minutes of the Second Congress showing that the Kazan Committee was listed as one of the organisations whose powers required formal confirmation. Since no formal confirmation has been forthcoming, there is no ground to rescind the resolution already taken by the Congress. The Kazan representative must remain at the Congress with voice only, while the committee, according to the Credentials Committee’s proposal, should seek formal confirmation right away.

First published in 1937 in the book Printed from Trety syezd R.S.D.R.P. the text Protokoly of the book

25 SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE DRAFT RESOLUTIONS ON THE RELATIONS BETWEEN WORKERS AND INTELLECTUALS IN SOCIAL- DEMOCRATIC ORGANISATIONS APRIL 22 (MAY 5)

I object to any examination of the resolutions one by one to avoid fragmentation and propose that they should be referred to committee for consolidation. In particular, concerning Comrade Kitayev’s opinion that the Party committees should consist of organisers only, let me say that they alone would be insufficient for the functioning of the committees.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1905 THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 161

26 SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE ADDITIONAL RESOLUTION TO THE PARTY RULES ON PERIODIC CONFERENCES OF REPRESENTATIVES OF VARIOUS PARTY ORGANISATIONS180 APRIL 22 (MAY 5)

1 I should have no objection to this, but isn’t the C.C. being burdened with too much work by being asked to organise these conferences? I propose that instead of “the C.C. should organise” we say: “both the Central and the local committees should organise”, and instead of “conferences of representatives of local committees”, say: “conferences of representatives of various organisations of our Party”.

2 That is right. I am against any additions which introduce nothing but formalism and red tape.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1905

27 DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE SPLINTER SECTION OF THE PARTY181

The Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. authorises the Central Committee to take all measures to prepare and work out conditions for a merger with the splinter section of the R.S.D.L.P., the final approval of these conditions to be left to a new Party congress. NB: not subject to publication

Motioned on April 23 (May 6) First published in 1924 in the book Printed from Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. the original 1905 goda. Polny tekst protokolov 162 V. I. LENIN

28 SPEECH ON RUMYANTSEV’S RESOLUTION ON THE SPLINTER SECTION OF THE PARTY182 APRIL 23 (MAY 6)

I find the first part unacceptable: how, given the split, is one to refrain from agitating? As for dissolving the Menshevik committees, that should be done with extreme caution.

First published in 1924 in the book Printed from Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. the text 1905 goda. Polny tekst protokolov of the book

29 SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION ON THE ATTITUDE TOWARDS NON-RUSSIAN SOCIAL- DEMOCRATIC ORGANISATIONS183 APRIL 23 (MAY 6)

We are being offered something unacceptable. What, after all, does Comrade Mikhailov want? Does he want the agreements to be concluded only by the C.C. and local committees jointly? But the C.C.’s general resolutions are binding on local committees. It is unreasonable to consider the special case in which the Menshevik C.C. got something wrong. The local committees should also be allowed to display initiative. We should authorise the local committees as well to co-ordinate the activity with Social- Democratic organisations locally. If the C.C. does not happen to find itself in conditions where it cannot be located, it will, of course, always be consulted.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1905 THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 163

30 SPEECH ON THE QUESTION OF THE ATTITUDE TO THE LIBERALS APRIL 23 (MAY 6)

It is inappropriate to raise the question of agreements with the liberals. Things in Russia have reached the point of an uprising, and in such conditions an agreement is highly unlikely. Even if some Osvobozhdeniye groups or liberal-minded students willing to act arms in hand are to be found, we really cannot conclude an agreement with a man like Struve. Adds to Comrade Voinov’s report on the Zemstvo congress in Moscow (quotes The Times).184

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1905

31 SPEECH ON THE REPORT ON THE WORK OF THE C.C.185 APRIL 25 (MAY 8)

I am being accused of contradicting myself in the matter of the trial. If the Congress were a general one, the question of the trial would have been raised even earlier, but everything that has gone before clearly shows what the matter was. The C.C. is unable to make a report, because it is confused. The way out for the C.C. was found in the same thing: the Congress, which met later than it should have done. When the “accused pleads guilty”, there is no need for any judicial proceedings.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1905 164 V. I. LENIN

32 PROPOSAL ON PROCEDURE GOVERNING ELECTION TO THE C.C. APRIL 25 (MAY 8) I propose that we should first determine the number of persons we need to elect, conduct the election by secret ballot, and then come to an agreement concerning the extent to which the results of the vote shall be made public.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1905 33 DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE TIME OF THE C.C.’S ENTRY INTO OFFICE The Congress resolves that its newly elected C.C. shall enter upon the exercise of its office immediately.186

Motioned on April 25 (May 8), 1905 Published in 1905 in the book Printed from Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. the original Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva 34 SPEECH ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. APRIL 25 (MAY 8) The Chairman points out that the question to what extent the Congress proceedings are to be reduced cannot be predetermined. All the debate concerning the agenda should be left out; he adds furthermore that the technical facilities abroad will have to be arranged from scratch and this may affect the speed of publication of the Congress proceedings.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Printed from Polny tekst protokolov, the text Central Committee publication, of the book Geneva, 1905 THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 165

35 AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT RESOLUTION ON PROPAGANDA AND AGITATION187 The Resolution as a Whole a) Organise a literary-propagandist group to work out a general propaganda programme an to compile in conformity with it a series of popular booklets on the principal questions of the Party programme, tactics and organisation.* a) Give special attention to the publication of pamphlets for work among the peasantry. b) Make arrangements for the publication of a popular organ in Russia. point c) substitute adopted c) Take measures to organise travelling groups of agitators and propagandists to help local centres.188 Lenin Written on April 25 (May 8), 1905 Published in 1905 in the book Printed from Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. the original Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva

36 SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION ON THE EVENTS IN THE CAUCASUS APRIL 26 (MAY 9)

1 It is wrong to say that the Party undertakes to appoint an uprising when the Caucasus starts a revolution. We merely authorise the C.C. to support the movement.** * The text of the draft resolution is given in brevier.—Ed. ** The records of the Minutes Committee give the end of the speech as follows: “We merely authorise the C.C. to support the movement but the conclusion does not follow that we should only agitate and propagan- dise, taking account of the situation in the Caucasus. I call everyone’s attention to this paragraph. “No one has requested the floor. The debate is closed.”—Ed. 166 V. I. LENIN

2 On the whole I agree with Comrade Petrov’s amendment,189 although it does not contain any revolutionary call.* Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P.Printed from Polny tekst protokolov,the text Central Committee publication,of the book Geneva, 1905

PLAN FOR A REPORT ON THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. AND ITS DECISIONS190 The Third Congress and Its Decisions

TT NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN WW A) Why did we have a congress and a conference? B) The organisational question at the Congress and at the conference. C) Tactical questions ” ~ ” ~ ” ~ ” A)P 1. Legality of convoking the Congress without the N Council. M 2. Validity of the Congress itself. N 3. Why not attend the Congress? (One congress Q turned into two.) B) Three main points of the organisational work of the Third Congress: Bb) 1) § 1. 2) “Single centre.” 3) “Guarantees of the minority’s rights.” Bc) Organisational Rules of the conference. (1) Directing “collectives” (?). (2) “Local organisation” (? and §1?). C) (3) C.C. and E.C.—and O.C. ??? (4) Terms of agreement? at the Congress? 4.1. Provisional revolutionary government.

* The records of the Minutes Committee give the speech as follows: “Lenin. Shouldn’t we add ‘to the proletariat and the peasantry of Russia’? Rybkin has just said the resolution could state that the Caucasus should not start an uprising until Russia is capable of supporting it. But this would require a change in the whole resolution. The important thing is the testimonials of local men. On the whole, I agree with Comrade Petrov’s amendment, although it does not contain any revolutionary call.”—Ed. PLAN FOR REPORT ON THE THIRD CONGRESS 167

3.2. Armed uprising. 2.3. Present political situation. 1.4. Attitude to other revolutionary and opposition parties. 5.5. Executive Committee. 4.4. C.C.=E.C. & representatives of regional committees=conference. 3.3. Regional committees=elected at regional congresses. 2.2. Regional congresses=delegates of directing collectives. 1. Directing collective=committee & all district committees & special group. The committee submits reports to district committees and dispatches, submits its “poll” to them.

The committee is almost wholly elected by members of district committees. groups of local organisation Some Menshevik compliments: “gross breach of promise” “foisting congress on the Party” “unprecedented crime” “betrayal of the Party’s trust” “high-handed trick” “juggling” “doing violence to the will of the organised proletariat (p. 13) Menshevik terms “the whole Party, i.e., the mass of its effective members, must be represented” p. 8 “how can tactical questions be decided without a preliminary discussion by the whole Party? Is it not flippant ... armed uprising ... even the writers have just started a discussion” (p. 10) “we have heard” (pp. 10-11). Written after May 15 (28), 1905 First published in 1931 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XVI the original 168 V. I. LENIN

REMARKS ON THE ARTICLE “ON A PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT” 191 1.Does it follow from Marx’s “Address” to the Commu- nists in March 1850192 that Marx regarded it as inconceivable for Communists to take part in a provisional revolutionary government together with the bourgeoisie in the epoch of a democratic revolution? 2.Is it true that in this “Address” Marx did not even raise the question of Social-Democratic participation in a provisional revolutionary government? 3.Is there any difference between: “regard participation as inconceivable” and “not to raise the question of participation”? 4.Is it true that in this “Address” Marx himself noted a strengthening of the petty-bourgeois democratic party and a weakening of the Communist workers’ party in the recent period? 5....*

Written before May 21 (June 3), 1905 First published in 1926Printed from in Lenin Miscellany Vthe original

ESSAY ON THE PARTY SPLIT 193 Economism and the old 1) Economism and the old Iskra 1900-1903. Iskra. (1901 Congress resolutions.)194 Second Party Congress. 2) Second Congress. 51= July 1903. =8&10&9&24.195 (= =Economists and the old Iskra.) Struggle for co-optation or 3) August 26, 1903-Novem- “a state of siege” ber 26, 1903.196 August-November 1903. (Never with Martynov!197 “Continuity.” Letter of October 8, 1903198).

* Here the MS. breaks off.—Ed. THE LATEST NEWS REPORT 169

to 5. P Clanishness and the Party! P N peace with the Economists! N 4) November 26, 1903- Janu- M Lenin’s “heresies”. M ary 7, 1904. N N Q November 1903-Janu- Q [Secret organisation.] ary 1904. Efforts at reconciliation old and new “Iskra” (“gulf”). January- July 1904. 5) January 7, 1904- ? July 9, 1904. Russian committees and the Iskra Editorial Board. “22” and “19”.199 Struggle for congress. De- nunciatory “document”. Struggle for congress. July 1904-May 1905. 6) July 1904-May 1905. Majority Committees’ Bureau = 3 conferences. Vperyod. “Plan for Zemstvo campaign.” Third Party Congress. 7) May 1905. Congress and May 1905. conference. After Third Congress. June 1905— 8) Après le III Con- gress.200

Written not earlier than May 1905 First published in 1926 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany V the original

THE LATEST NEWS REPORT

The Potemkin has appeared off Feodosia.201 It has restocked its food supply and has sailed for an unknown destination, having seized a Russian merchant ship with a cargo of 170 V. I. LENIN cattle. It is reported that it has also obtained some coal from a British merchant ship. There is no question at all of surrender. The Potemkin has set itself the task of sparking off an uprising in all the coastal cities. Here is the text of a manifesto which the Potemkin is circulating (according to a report by a German newspaper from Bucharest). “To all civilised citizens and to the working people! The crimes of the autocratic government have exhausted all patience. The whole of Russia, burning with indignation, exclaims: Down with the chains of bondage! The government wants to drown the country in blood, forgetting that the troops consist of sons of the oppressed people. The crew of the Potemkin has taken the first decisive step. We refuse to go on acting as the people’s hangman. Our slogan is: freedom for the whole Russian people or death! We demand an end to the war and the immediate convocation of a constituent assembly on the basis of universal suffrage. That is the aim for which we shall fight to the end: victory or death! All free men, all workers will be on our side in the struggle for liberty and peace. Down with the autocracy! Long live the constituent assembly!”

Proletary No. 7 Printed from the July 10 (June 27), 1905 Proletary text verified with the original

NOTE BY THE COMMITTEE FOR PUBLICATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE R.S.D.L.P. THIRD CONGRESS TO THE TEXT OF THE MINUTES

Concerning the number of votes at the Congress, the Minutes Committee requests readers to bear the following in mind. At the Congress, there were 46 votes represented by 23 delegates, of whom one had one vote, one had three and the rest, two each. (With the arrival of Comrade Golubin, i.e., from the 18th sitting on, there were 24 delegates.) Almost all the voting at the Congress was counted according to the number of delegates, i.e., for the sake of simplicity, it was assumed that all the delegates had one vote each. DRAFT LEAFLET 171

That is why the number of votes for and against adds up to 23 and not to 46. It goes without saying that this simplifi- cation of the count could not have any effect on the results, because both the number of votes for and the number of votes against were equally halved. There was not a single instance of a division of votes where a decision depended on a single comrade with three votes.

Written not later than July 1905 Published in 1905 in the bookPrinted from Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P.the original Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva

DRAFT LEAFLET 202 To All Citizens! To the Russian People and to All the Peoples of Russia 1. Full-scale war—bloodshed—fusillade of January 9— barricades in Riga—Caucasus, Poland—Odessa, etc., etc.—Peasant revolts. 2. Over what? Constituent assembly. Freedoms for the people. Trade 3. Government’s response. Fraud of the Zemstvo people. The government issues the challenge. The Army and the Navy vacillate. 4. What is to be done? Revolutionary army and revolutionary government. 5. All class-conscious workers, all honest democrats, all peasants prepared for the struggle must rally together and organise in groups and detachments of the revolutionary army, obtaining arms, electing their commanders, and keeping themselves prepared to do everything to help the uprising. 172 V. I. LENIN

6. Establishment of a revolutionary government should be stated as the aim. Consolidation of the uprising. Concen- tration of people’s forces. Organisation of freedom and struggle for freedom. 7. The slogans and aims of the revolutionary government. P (1) Constituent assembly. N N and elections Five principal—cen- N (2) Arming of the people. tral—foundation ofM (3) Freedom. people’s form of gov- N (4) Peasant committees. ernmentN (5) Liberation of oppressed na- N tionalities. Q (6) 8-hour working day. 8. Revolutionary army and revolutionary government. Workers, organise! Try to direct the crowd! Draw in the peasants! Written in July 1905 First published in 1926 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany V the original

OUTLINE OF TACTICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BOLSHEVIKS AND MENSHEVIKS OVER THE ATTITUDE TO THE BULYGIN DUMA

1) Intensified agitation over the law on the Duma. * P 2) Support for the Left wing of bourgeois democracy N proposing to boycott the Duma. N 3) Intensified agitation against the Duma over the elec- N tions and during them. M 4) The central slogans of agitation: N armed uprising N revolutionary army N provisional revolutionary government Q (6 points).

1) Idem *

* The text in square brackets is crossed out in the MS.—Ed. REMARKS ON ELECTIONS TO BULYGIN DUMA 173

P 2) None. N 3) Intensified agitation not so much against the Duma N N as for the election of more resolute men. M 4) Agitation slogans: N constituent assembly N people’s agitation committees N illegal representation Q revolutionary self-government.

Written between August 11 and 23 (August 24 and September 5), 1905 First published in 1926 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany V the original

REMARKS ON THE QUESTION OF ELECTIONS TO THE BULYGIN DUMA

1) To participate and elect only the supporters of the autocracy (Moskovskiye Vedomosti203). 2) To participate and elect only liberals (Vestnik Yevropy,204 Rus,205 Osvobozhdeniye, etc., etc.). 3) To participate and elect only determined supporters of democratic and free representation (Iskra). 4) To participate and elect only those who have imperative mandates (Kiev lawyers). 5) To participate and elect only with a revolutionary commitment (Cherevanin in Iskra). 6) Active boycott with a slogan for a popular representative constituent assembly (Bund). 7) Active boycott with slogans for an armed uprising, revolutionary army and revolutionary government (Pro- letary 206). P A part*: a popular representative constituent P M assembly to be elected independently through M Q spontaneous generation. Q (Iskra and partially Bund.)207 Written after August 19 (September 1), 1905 First published in 1926 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany V the original * Apart.—Ed. 174 V. I. LENIN

PLAN FOR AN ARTICLE “THE PRINCIPAL TASK OF SOCIALIST POLICY” 208

The Principal Task of Socialist Policy An independent political party of the proletariat with a clear-cut socialist programme. First application in practice. “C.D.”209 Its (objective) tasks. Cf. Nasha Zhizn,210 Septem- ber 18: win over the people, increase the people’s confidence, etc., etc. Cf. ibid. concerning the formation of the C.D. Party and the denial in Birzheviye Vedomosti.211 Is this confidence to be destroyed or maintained on certain “conditions”? Vacillation by the new-Iskra men (Parvus, Cherevanin, Martov: “election of resolute men”). Unconditional struggle against the C.D.s. “Conciliators.” Beginning of betrayal. Objections: 1) “absenteeism”. Slander. On the contrary, the most active agitation.* 2) support for revolutionary bourgeoisie. Ça dépend.** In parliament? Yes. If we are to choose between the conservatives and the C.D.s? Yes. But just now there is neither the one, nor the other, because there is n o parlia- mentarism as yet. Struggle for it. Betrayal in struggle. A real*** support for the C.D.s at the present time means revolutionary struggle and uprising. In the street or in parliament? (Cf. Marx über Ledru Rollin. 1849.212) The use of legal and semi-legal means? Unquestionably, yes. Labour congress?—Yes. Meetings? Yes. But to make use of something which is close does not signify merger or diffusion. To make use of it, one must be independent, whole and united.

* These two phrases are in English in the original.—Ed. ** Depending on the circumstances.—Ed. *** Two possibilities: (1) The Duma merely grumbles. (2) The Duma struggles for a government of the bourgeoisie. (Tertium non datur. The Duma cannot struggle consistently for the revolution.) In the first and in the second case, an uprising is decisive. To (2)—a convenient pretext, nothing more. The danger of Petrunkevich & Co. in power. NOTE 175

The absurdity of the new-Iskra tactics: “agreement and support” plus “mock elections as a possible motive for an uprising”. There can be 1,000 and 1 pretexts. No. The tactic is now different: 1) Ruthless struggle against the C.D. conciliators. 2) Badgering them for having gone into the Duma. 3) Development of an independent Social-Democratic party in the struggle against the C.D.s and while agitating over the State Duma. 4) Preparation for an uprising which is coming and which—and not “parliamenta- rism”—is now the crux of the situation. 5) The use for this preparation, this agitation of all semi-legal and legal means. 6) Concentration on these slogans: armed uprising, revolutionary army, provisional revolutionary government.

Written after September 18 (October 1), 1905 First published in 1931Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XVIthe original

NOTE 213 Dialogue Between an Osvobozhdeniye Man

W and a Social-Democrat

W Pp. 1) impossibility of an up- —The impossible becomes (wer- rising after the Potemkin. den) possible. 2) reappraisal of the —“you are wretched,* and forces. you are rich.” 214 3) K. Kautsky on a pro- —the uprising is connected visional revolutionary with a provisional revolu- government. tionary government. Recog- nition of the uprising by the government= martial law. 4) unwisdom of the idea —Once again learn from your of boycott: failure to enemies, if you don’t believe use the instruments. your friends. The government’s fear of a boycott. * Total “wretchedness” from the standpoint of military technique, etc. But have a look at the movement and its spontaneous growth: January 9—Riga—Poland—1.5-million-strong strike—Odessa—Cau- casus—Moscow. September 1905. 176 V. I. LENIN

5) the uprising and “eld- —“non-combatants.” Indeed, it erly” workers. Trade is correct to use them for unionism. “A class par- trade unionism, but they ty.” will provide a rearguard. 6) parliamentary rule: sup- —indeed, in parliament we port neighbours, other- shall support you against wise you will help Moskovskiye Vedomosti, Moskovskiye Vedomosti. when such is the choice, but that is not the point just now. The struggle is not in parliament, but over a parliament. You are not fighters.

Written in late September 1905 First published in 1931 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XVI the original

RUSSIA’S FINANCES We have repeatedly pointed out that the autocratic government is more and more confused over its financial affairs (tricks would be an apter word, I think). It is increasingly obvious that a financial collapse is inevitable. Here is an interesting confirmation of this. The Berlin correspondent of the London Economist,215 one of the most influential organs of the European financial barons, reported on October 11 as follows: “A representative of the Mendelssohn Bank has been in St. Peters- burg this week to take part in the negotiations between the Russian Government and French bankers for the much-heralded new Russian loan. According to apparently authentic statements given out here, the amount to be raised will be about £75,000,000 [about 700 million rubles], of which France is to take about half, while the rest is to be offered in Germany, Holland, England, and the United States. It is also stated that a large part of the issue is to be devoted to taking up the Treasury notes placed in France and Germany during the war. That Russia should appeal to the money markets at just this juncture, when all the great centres are under unusual pressure, is taken as striking evidence of its financial straits. One version of the story, however, has it that only a small part of the sum above mentioned is to be offered for subscription now, while the rest will be raised later, presumably early next year. But this only increases the unfavourable INSERTIONS FOR V. KALININ’S ARTICLE 177 impression as to the urgency of Russia’s needs. That there is no enthusiasm in Germany for a Russian loan just at this moment goes without saying. Not only the condition of the money market here, but, more than all, the continuance of political turmoil in Russia, and the visible weakening, not to say breakdown, of Governmental authority there, are facts that are being weighed in Germany in a manner that augurs ill for the forthcoming subscription.”

Written after October 1 (14), 1905 First published in 1931Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XVIthe original

INSERTIONS FOR V. KALININ’S ARTICLE “THE PEASANT CONGRESS”216

1 We see, consequently, that class-conscious socialists must unconditionally support the revolutionary struggle of all, even the prosperous, peasants against the officials and landowners, but class-conscious socialists must make the clear and straightforward statement that the “general redistribution” 217 the peasants want falls very far short of socialism. Socialism demands the abolition of the power of money, the power of capital, the abolition of all private ownership of the means of production, the abolition of the commodity economy. Socialism demands that the land and the factories should be handed over to the working people organising large-scale (instead of scattered small-scale) production under a general plan. The peasant struggle for land and liberty is a great step towards socialism, but it is still a very far cry from socialism itself.

... The tactical resolution adopted by the Congress is truly astounding by its meagreness. We are inclined to think that there some of the peasant well-wishers (liberals) must have done some more “explaining” . Here is the resolution: “The activity of the Peasant Union, depending on local conditions, may be either open or secret (conspiratorial). All members of the 178 V. I. LENIN

Union must spread their views and seek to realise their demands in every possible way, being undeterred by the resistance on the part of the Zemstvo chiefs, the police and other authorities. Among other things, they are insistently advised to make use of their right to draw up public decisions at village and volost meetings and private gather- ings concerning improvements in state amenities and improvement of the people’s welfare.”

That kind of resolution is extremely unsatisfactory. Instead of a revolutionary call for an uprising, it merely gives liberal advice of a general sort. Instead of organising a revolutionary party, the resolution only organises an annex to the liberal party. The progress of the movement itself will inevitably and inescapably split up the liberal landowners and the revolutionary peasants, and we Social- Democrats will try to accelerate this split.

Proletary No. 25Printed from the November 16 (3), 1905Proletary text verified with the original

SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF THE POWERS OF REPRESENTATION OF THE DISTRICT AND THE VYBORG ORGANISATIONS AT THE ST. PETERSBURG CITY CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.218 FEBRUARY 11 (24), 1906

1 Comrade Dan has no knowledge of parliamentary tactics. In all the countries of Western Europe a member of the bureau is not deprived of the right to motion proposals.

2 There are two proposals: a decision on the question of the 56 votes, and exclusion of the whole district organisation from the conference. I request a vote. THE UNITY CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 179

3 I request a vote on the following question: can a section of the St. Petersburg organisation here be deprived of representation?

4 I request my proposal to be put to the vote first: does the assembly agree to vote on Comrade Martov’s proposal?

5 Comrade Nikolai motioned a proposal which he very correctly called radical219; when a motioned proposal supersedes all the others, it is voted on first.

First published in 1930 in thePrinted from magazine Proletarskaya Revolutsiasecretarial notes No. 12preserved in the Central Party Archives of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism under the C.P.S.U. Central Committee

THE UNITY CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P.220 APRIL 10-ù5 (APRIL ù3-MAY 8), 1906

1 SPEECHES AT THE SECOND SITTING OF THE CONGRESS CONCERNING THE ROLL-CALL VOTE ON THE WRITTEN STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE CONGRESS BUREAU 221

1 I second Comrade Schmidt’s proposal and invite all those wishing to support this proposal to give their signatures. 180 V. I. LENIN

2 Comrade Larin’s proposal is nothing but the grossest kind of mockery of the Congress minority by the majority.... I repeat: this is gross mockery of the rights of the minority at the Congress, it is an attempt to destroy the guarantees of the rights of the minority held out by the standing orders.

First published in 1907 in the book Printer from Protokoly Obyedinitelnogo syezda the text R.S.D.R.P., sostoyavshegosya of the book v Stokgolme v 1906 godu (Proceedings of the Unity Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. held in Stockholm in 1906), Moscow

2 SPEECH AT THE THIRD SITTING OF THE CONGRESS Lenin objects to Dan’s point222 and speaks for the need to discuss the question of assessing the current situation and for putting the question of nationalities on the agenda.

First published in 1907 in the book Printer from Protokoly Obyedinitelnogo syezda the text R.S.D.R.P., sostoyavshegosya of the book v Stokgolme v 1906 godu, Moscow

3 PROPOSAL ON FORMULATING POINT VIII OF THE DRAFT AGENDA FOR THE CONGRESS To point VIII: “Attitude to the demand of a special constituent assembly for Poland”, add the words: “in connection with the national question in the Party Programme”.

First published in 1907 in the book Printer from Protokoly Obyedinitelnogo syezda the text R.S.D.R.P., sostoyavshegosya of the book v Stokgolme v 1906 godu, Moscow AMONG THE NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES 181

4 WRITTEN STATEMENT AT THE 15TH SITTING OF THE CONGRESS The very first page of our resolutions says: “the class interests in a bourgeois revolution”,223 line 27 from the top.

First published in 1907 in the book Printer from Protokoly Obyedinitelnogo syezda the text R.S.D.R.P., sostoyavshegosya of the book v Stokgolme v 1906 godu, Moscow

5 SPEECH AT THE 24TH SITTING OF THE CONGRESS224 I believe I shall express the will of the entire Congress in extending, on behalf of the Russian Social-Democratic Party, greetings to its new members and in expressing the wish that this unity should be the best earnest of our further successful struggle.

First published in 1907 in the book Printer from Protokoly Obyedinitelnogo syezda the text R.S.D.R.P., sostoyavshegosya of the book v Stokgolme v 1906 godu, Moscow

AMONG THE NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES Rech225 is resentful over the fact that in view of the rumours of a semi-Cadet, semi-bureaucratic ministry, the Left-wing press has begun to talk of a horse-trading deal between the Cadets and the camarilla, of a betrayal which is inevitable in any such deals. “Is it necessary to prove that these assertions are false and absurd?” writes the indignant Rech. It appears, Messrs. Cadets, that it is, and even highly, necessary to do so, because in the same article (“Famine and Politics”) we read: “This struggle (between the Duma and the present ministry), a slow and hard struggle, has resulted, however, in the question concerning a responsible cabinet being brought down from the sphere of abstract Considerations to the soil of concrete reality, and in it being discussed as one of the real possibilities.” 182 V. I. LENIN

That is very good. But what about the question of dissolving the State Council, the question of amnesty, the question of universal, etc., suffrage? Have all these questions likewise become “real possibilities” already? Surely, they have not, have they? After all, there is so far not even a rumour about them. That being so, what is one to do? “It is necessary to prove.”

Written on June 24 (July 7), 1906 Published on June 25, 1906 Printed from in the newspaper Ekho No. 4 the Ekho text

AMONG THE NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES

On second thoughts, Rech finds that the general has asked much too much for his patronage of the Cadet ministry and it declares that the Cadets will not give up the principle of compulsory alienation of the land in favour of the peasants and total amnesty, whatever portfolios they may be offered. We think that the general, being the practical statesman that he is, will see no reason for spoil- ing the deal over a matter of principle. After all, under the Cadet plan not the whole of the land is subject to compulsory alienation, but only as much as has to be allocated to the peasants to enable them to pay the state taxes; furthermore, the owners of the alienated land are to be paid in cash “on a fair valuation” and these days money is ever so much easier to manage than land, which no longer brings in as much income as before, in view of the stubborn refusal of the peasants to cultivate it for others. As for the amnesty, the Cadets have already done their duty to the country by informing the supreme authorities of the people’s unanimous desire to see prisoners and exiles at liberty, and, to refrain from encroaching on the inalienable prerogative of the crown in this business, have decided to kill the amnesty bill which the Trudovik group intends to table in the Duma.226 What the devil does General Trepov still want? Let’s have done with the bargaining, General, and hand over the reins to the new driver, “without any pangs, AMONG THE NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES 183 without any fatal brooding, and without futile and empty doubts”: after all, in case of failure the “extreme measures” will still be at your disposal....

Written on June 27 (July 10), 1906 Published on June 28, 1906 Printed from in the newspaper Ekho No. 6 the Ekho text

AMONG THE NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES

Following the unsuccessful affair of the Cadet-Octobrist- official ministry, the government has tried to scare the Cadets with the prospect of a dictatorship. Now the Cadets are trying to scare the government with the prospect of a revolution. Rech writes: “The conflagration is spreading—such is the impression of the news coming by cable from every corner of Russia.... It is no longer the revolutionary intelligentsia or even the working class that is aflame; the peasantry, the troops are aflame too. That is, it is more correct to say that the whole of Russia is in flames.... At the slightest pretext, the peasants flock in their thousands to deal summarily with the authorities, the landowners, the estates and the manors.” On the subject of this “conflagration”, Prof. Gredeskul hastens to show the depth of his understanding of the historical events:

“We are undoubtedly on the eve of crucial events. Either the government will come to its senses within the next few days and hand the power over to a Duma ministry, or it will bring us to the greatest disasters.” And so, it is either a revolution or a Cadet ministry. It is not surprising at all that a Cadet tries to use everything, the people’s spontaneous revolutionary activity above all, to demonstrate the need for a Cadet ministry. However, he is labouring under a delusion: the antidote—a Cadet ministry—which the Cadet quacks are now prescribing for the revolution will not work against the poison of spontaneous revolutionary action by the mass, against its urge, to which Rech itself testifies, to realise its right to freedom of assembly (not the Cadet freedom of assembly, but full freedom) and to all the land. 184 V. I. LENIN

You can go on trying hard, gentlemen, but the revolution has coped with the Witte-Durnovo system, and it will also cope with the Cadet antidotes.

* * * It is either a revolution or a Cadet ministry, says Rech and adds: we beg to inform you that we, for our part, are not afraid of the revolution, whereas you are going to get hurt. But those who know how to take a militant stand at a fighting moment are well aware of the worth of such talk. Novoye Vremya,227 an organ of the pogromites and sergeant-majors, is also well aware that Messrs. Gredeskuls give a reminder of the revolution only because they fear it like the plague. That is why Novoye Vremya, we believe, gives a much better exposé of the psychology and political substance of the deal which is being prepared, when it says: “Messrs. Cadets, we both have the same fear of the revolution, but we have almost exhausted our resources in the struggle against it, and you still have a thing or two left, which is why you should get on with it and not drag things out for too long.” That is just what they are saying. The Cadets say: we for our part can afford to wait. But the Novoye Vremya gentlemen urge: come, make haste, the revolution is pressing. The latest issue of Novoye Vremya says as much: “...there will be an explosion the responsibility for which will fall not only on the present ministry, but also on the Cadet Party, which is guilty of the fact that being reluctant, for want of courage, to lose a part of its popularity among the extreme Left-wingers, it has led the Duma into a fatally drawn-out conflict and has committed a crime against the law of peaceful evolution, insisting on an immediate militant implementation of a political programme, a process which requires a very, very long time.” That’s how things are: there is a bit of bargaining, a bit of scaring, and then a deal is done, for they have a common cause and a common aim.

Written on June 28 (July 11), 1906 Published on June 29, 1906 Printed from in the newspaper Ekho No. 7 the Ekho text AMONG THE NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES 185

AMONG THE NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES The newspaper Mysl228 carries an interesting “proscription list” of the Yaroslavl Administration. Dozens of persons (56 in the town of Yaroslavl and 17 in the town of Rybinsk) are marked off in it as “suspects”, and a secret report requests the police department for “appropriate instructions”. In this connection, Mysl says:

“Let everyone pass judgement. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. He that hath reason to understand, let him understand. The police department has now conceived a grandiose operation for the simultaneous radical and “final liquidation” of a number of organisations over the entire Russian land through a massive “seizure”, unprecedented in scale, of persons suspected of adherence to the Social- ist-Revolutionary and Social-Democratic parties, and the peasant and the railway unions. For that purpose, the department has demanded full lists of suspected persons from the local authorities. These “proscription lists”, concentrated in one place, by now contain almost ten thousand names of persons over whom arrest hangs like the sword of Damocles.”

And so, the government is hatching another plot. Mili- tary preparations against the people, “measures” to dissolve the Duma, and lists containing 10,000 names for arrest! As in October-December, the government has made a “dead set” at the revolution, utilising the relative freedom to lure out and destroy thousands of more fighters for freedom. Let one and all, therefore, be at their post. The government is prepared—the revolutionary people must also be prepared.

Written on June 29 (July 12), 1906 Published on June 30, 1906 Printed from in the newspaper Ekho No. 8 the Ekho text 186 V. I. LENIN

THE SECOND CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. (FIRST ALL-RUSSIA CONFERENCE)229 NOVEMBER 3 - û (16 - ù0), 1906 1 REPORT ON THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN FOR THE SECOND DUMA NOVEMBER 4 (17) Resolution of the St. Petersburg and Moscow Committees, Polish Social-Democrats and the Latvians230 1. We have had to accept a struggle on the Duma basis only through the fault of the treacherous bourgeoisie. 2. We must base the election campaign on opposition between revolutionary and “peaceful” struggle, showing the great danger of Cadet hegemony in the emancipation movement. Hence the question: is a bloc with the Cadets (agreement at the first stage) admissible? 3. At the first stage, Social-Democracy must, as a general rule, act independently; by way of exception—agreements at the first stage with the parties recognising the constituent assembly, armed uprising, etc.; at the second stage— agreements of a technical character, only for the proportional distribution of mandates. There is nothing more dangerous than to tell the masses: vote with us for the conciliators. Krushevan is dangerous not because he has a seat in the Duma, but because he is a particle of the Black- Hundred organisation supporting the government. For the sake of small separate exceptions you support Cadet hegemony, thereby upsetting the whole of our principled position (the Caucasus, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Poland refuse to have agreements). If the Black-Hundred men are returned, the Duma will simply be more violent. Why do you believe that it is not the Cadets but the Social- Democrats who are to blame for a return of the Black- Hundred men—in the event of a split in the vote? First published in 1960 Printed from in Vol. 14 of the Fifth Russian the minutes edition of the Collected Works THE SECOND CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 187

2 SUMMING- UP SPEECH ON THE REPORT ON THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN FOR THE SECOND DUMA NOVEMBER 4 (17)

Agreement at elections is a bloc (you tell the masses: do ut des*). We say: we sometimes go along with the revolutionary bourgeoisie, but never with the opportunist and treacherous bourgeoisie. The election campaign will proceed between two extremes: 400 Cadets & 100 Social-Democrats (through agreement) and 200 Black-Hundred men& 250 Cadets& 20 or 50 Social-Democrats (without agreement). To put forward both an agent and a fighter is to hit out at one’s own positions. The Black-Hundred men will be defeated through agreements, but then the Social-Democrats will also be defeated (morally).

First published in 1960 Printed from in Vol. 14 of the Fifth Russian the minutes edition of the Collected Works

3 SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE MENSHEVIK ELECTORAL PLATFORM NOVEMBER 6 (19)

I have merely said that the platform contrasts revolutionary and peaceful methods and nothing more, the rest being unsatisfactory. Nothing is said about how the Social- Democrats differ from other groups of “working people” (Socialist-Revolutionaries), as the Social-Democratic group in the Duma does in its declaration.231 No distinction is made between scientific and vulgar socialism. Nothing is said about the need to distinguish between the proletariat’s stand and that of the petty proprietor. The platform does not come out for a bloc, but it is a bloc, because any petty bourgeois will subscribe to it. In a plat- * Give and take.—Ed. 188 V. I. LENIN form we cannot remain silent about the other parties, and this one says nothing about them, apart from a vague indication: “more resolute”, etc. First published in 1960 Printed from in Vol. 14 of the Fifth Russian the minutes edition of the Collected Works 4 SPEECHES ON THE QUESTION OF CONVENING A “LABOUR CONGRESS” NOVEMBER 7 (20)

1 Lenin insists that the question of a “labour congress” is a burning one and should be discussed.

2 Lenin points to the publication of letters by Plekhanov, Martov and others in the bourgeois press, and to the fact that Kostrov, for instance, failed to table in the Duma group the proposal on the demand for a Cadet ministry (which came from the C.C.), thereby committing a breach of Party discipline, and a good thing too. The agitation for a “labour congress” is used to put spokes in the wheels of our Party’s activity. We have the C.C. organ, but no Cen- tral Organ, and why not? There is enough money, the C.C. organ is published regularly, but there is no organisation, and that is why there is no C.O. First published in 1960 Printed from in Vol. 14 of the Fifth Russian the minutes edition of the Collected Works 5 MINORITY OPINION ENTERED AT THE ALL- RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC DELEGATES OF POLAND, THE LATVIAN TERRITORY, ST. PETERSBURG, MOSCOW, THE CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL REGION AND THE VOLGA AREA The Bund delegates have tabled a resolution at the conference which almost entirely repeats the resolution of the Bund’s Seventh Congress, and which gives a historical THE SECOND CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 189 assessment of the Duma boycott.232 The undersigned delegates to the conference have abstained in the voting on this resolution for the following reasons. It is wrong and impossible to separate the question of why we go into the Duma233 from the question of how we get there. Recognition that the boycott is correct means that the basic character of all our tactics remains absolutely the same under the present participation in the election as it was during the boycott of the First Duma. To recognise that the Cadet majority of the First Duma was a hindrance to the activity of the revolutionary elements, while endorsing agreements between the Cadets and the Social-Democrats at the first stage of the elections is to have our general premises beaten by our practical policies. To recognise and support Cadet hegemony in agitation before the masses by putting up common electoral rolls only to condemn this hegemony later in a special additional resolution, is to compromise in the strongest possible way all the tactics and all the principles of revolutionary Social-Democracy. Those are the grounds on which we place before the entire R.S.D.L. Party the following minority opinion. “The tactics of boycotting the State Duma, which helped the mass of the people to form a correct opinion of the impotence and lack of independence of that institution, found complete justification in the farcical legislative activities of the State Duma and in its dissolution. “But the counter-revolutionary behaviour of the bourgeoisie and the compromising tactics of the Russian liberals prevented the immediate success of the boycott and compelled the proletariat to take up the struggle against the landlord and bourgeois counter-revolution also on the basis of the Duma campaign. “The Social-Democrats must wage this struggle outside the Duma and in the Duma itself in order to develop the class-consciousness of the proletariat, to further expose to the whole people the harmfulness of constitutional illusions, and to develop the revolution. “In view of this state of affairs, and for the purposes mentioned above, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party must take a most energetic part in the present Duma campaign. 190 V. I. LENIN

“The principal objects of the Social-Democratic election and Duma campaigns are: firstly, to explain to the people the uselessness of the Duma as a means of satisfying the demands of the proletariat and the revolutionary petty bourgeoisie, especially the peasantry. Secondly, to explain to the people the impossibility of achieving political liberty by parliamentary methods as long as the real power remains in the hands of the tsar’s government, and to explain the necessity of an armed uprising, of a provisional revolutionary government and of a constituent assembly elected by universal, direct and equal suffrage by secret ballot. Thirdly, to criticise the First Duma and reveal the bankruptcy of Russian liberalism, and especially to show how dangerous and fatal it would be for the cause of the revolution if the liberal-monarchist Cadet Party were to play the predominant and leading role in the liberation movement. “As the class party of the proletariat, the Social-Demo- cratic Party must remain absolutely independent throughout the election and Duma campaigns, and here, too, must under no circumstances merge its slogans or tactics with those of any other opposition or revolutionary party. “Therefore, at the first stage of the election campaign, i.e., before the masses, it must as a general rule come out absolutely independently and put forward only its own Party candidates. “Exceptions to this rule are permissible only in cases of extreme necessity and only in relation to parties that fully accept the main slogans of our immediate political struggle, i.e., those which recognise the necessity of an armed uprising and are fighting for a democratic republic. Such agreements, however, may only extend to the nomination of a joint list of candidates, without in any way restricting the independence of the political agitation carried on by the Social-Democrats. “In the workers’ curia the Social-Democratic Party must come out absolutely independently and refrain from entering into agreements with any other party. “At the higher stages of the election, i.e., at the assemblies of electors in the towns and of delegates and electors in the countryside, partial agreements may be entered into exclusively for the purpose of distributing seats proportionately LABOUR CONGRESS AND MERGER WITH THE S.R.s 191 to the number of votes cast for the parties entering the agreement. In this connection, the Social-Democratic Party distinguishes the following main types of bourgeois parties according to the consistency and determination of their democratic views: (a) the Socialist-Revolution- aries, the Polish Socialist Party and similar republican parties*; (b) the Popular Socialists235 and the Trudoviks of a similar type**; (c) the Cadets.” Proletary No. 8 Printed from the November 23, 1906 Proletary text

LABOUR CONGRESS AND MERGER WITH THE S.R.s (NOTE)

As our readers will know from No. 9 of Proletary,236 the Menshevik Y. Larin has come out in his pamphlet in favour of a non-Party labour congress and for a merger of the Social-Democratic Party with the S.R.s, the P.P.S. and in general with all “socialist” parties. Larin himself says that the number of members in the S.R. Party is unknown. He adds that the Socialist-Revolutionaries estimate their membership at 50,000-60,000. Saying that this could be an exaggeration, Larin believes that the S.R.s must number at least 30,000. We do not know where Larin got his figures of 50,000- 60,000, for he mentions no source. We have never come across such data in any S.R. writings. The only fully published minutes of the First Congress of the S.R. Party (December 1905) do not contain any data on the S.R. Party’s membership. The fact is that no such data could have been available, because elections to a party congress by all the members of the party, proportional to a definite number of party members, have never been held by any party in Russia except the Social-Democrats. The Social-Democratic Party alone proclaimed this principle in November 1905 in the newspaper Novaya Zhizn on behalf of the Bolshe- * Perhaps the Zionist socialists234 also come under this category. ** Perhaps including certain Jewish democrats. We are not competent to judge of these matters without having the opinion of the Jewish Social-Democrats. 192 V. I. LENIN vik C.C.,237 and the All-Russia Conference of the Bolshevik Organisations in December 1905238 already consisted of representatives elected on the basis of one for 300 Party members. Representation on this principle was first applied to the whole Party at the Unity (Stockholm) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., with the controlling element in this case being the composition of the Organising Committee for convoking the Congress: it was made up of equal numbers of representatives from the two contending factions, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. So, where Larin got his maximum of 50,000-60,000 remains an absolute mystery. However he used this figure (which is about one-third of the membership of the R.S.D.L.P.) to suggest to readers that in a merger of the two parties the Social-Democrats were fully assured of a preponderance over the S.R.s. Larin’s mistake was already pointed out in a feuilleton in No. 9 of Proletary, which said that instead of “peace and positive work” such a merger would actually result in growing dissension, to say nothing of its being unacceptable for reasons of principle. Interest- ing confirmation of what we then said came from an article by Léon Remy in the French Socialist newspaper L’Humanité 239 on December 17, 1906. Tribune Russe,240 the S.R. Party’s official organ abroad, quoted Remy as saying that the “Council” of the S.R. Party “reckons the party to have about 150,000 organised members, and if the concept of membership is given a somewhat broader interpretation, such as that given to the Rules by some regional committees, the figure is 200,000”. To enable readers to judge for themselves how this curious figure was obtained, we cite all the district data given in Remy’s article. North-west—21,000; Volga area—14,000 (“almost double the figure if all those accepting the party’s programme are included”); Northern Caucasus—21,000; Transcaucasus—17,900; Centre—26,000 (including 5,000 in Moscow. It is odd that our Moscow comrades have been unable to discern these 5,000 even through a magnifying glass); North—20,000. Here is a problem for the reader to solve: who has displayed more thoughtlessness—1) S.R.s, 2) Larin, or 3) Ple- khanov and Axelrod? REPORT AT CONFERENCE 193

The picture is hardly improved if in this matter of a merger with the S.R.s, the latter two disavow their ardent admirer Y. Larin. One need only give thought to drawing a line of distinction between the “all-Russia representatives” and the industrial workers and agricultural labourers, farm hands or journeymen and peasants, artisans or craftsmen and working men, etc.

Proletary No. 10Printed from the December 20, 1906Proletary text

REPORT AT A CONFERENCE OF THE ST. PETERSBURG ORGANISATION OF THE R.S.D.L.P. ON ELECTORAL AGREEMENTS IN ELECTIONS FOR THE SECOND DUMA241 JANUARY 6 (19), 1907 BRIEF NEWSPAPER REPORT The rapporteur notes the absence in St. Petersburg of any Black-Hundred danger tales of which are being spread about by the Cadets in order to induce the electorate to vote for them. The local Social-Democrats are faced with the question of how to release the masses of the population in the capital from the ideological hegemony of the Cadets. Considerable sections of the urban poor who are semi-proletarians keep wavering between the Cadets and the Social- Democrats. The Cadets have been trying to bribe them by promising seats in the Duma in order to reinforce their influence on them. That is why it would, perhaps, be advis- able to enter an agreement with the revolutionary-democratic parties and groups so as to work together to undermine the influence of the Cadets. The rapporteur believes that it is up to the practical workers in the local organisation to decide on the actual need and possibility of an agreement and also on its forms. Proletary No. 12 Printed from the December 25, 1906 Proletary text 194 V. I. LENIN

ARE THE MENSHEVIKS ENTITLED TO CONDUCT A POLICY OF SUPPORTING THE CADETS?

What determines Social-Democratic policy? Essentially the class interests of the proletariat. Formally, the decisions of Party congresses. Which are these decisions? First, the decisions of the Unity (Stockholm) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. Second, the decisions of the November All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P., approved by the C.C. What does the resolution of the Stockholm Congress instruct us to do about the Duma? ...(point 1, a) “strive to extend and sharpen these conflicts (meaning the conflicts both between the government and the Duma, and inside the Duma itself) to limits making it possible to use them as starting-points for broad mass movements aimed at...” etc. Have the Mensheviks abided by this direction of the Congress? In the matter of the presidium have they extended and sharpened the conflict between the Duma Left wing and the Cadets? No, the Mensheviks have been committing a breach of the Congress’s decision. Furthermore, in the same resolution the Congress directed: “...that this intervention should be conducted in such a way as to make these sharpening clashes: (a) reveal to the mass the inconsistency of all the bourgeois parties which undertake to act as spokesmen for the people’s will in the Duma, and (b) bring the broad mass (the proletariat, the peasantry and the urban petty bourgeoisie) to an awareness that the Duma is totally useless”, etc. Consequently, the Mensheviks could, without risking anything at all, or abandoning absolutely legal ground— the Mensheviks were duty-bound to show the mass, i.e., openly in the Duma, that the Cadet presidium is a presidium of a party which has turned its back on the revolution. What was the instruction to the Party contained in the resolution of the November All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P., which was approved by the Central Committee and adopted by the 18 Menshevik delegates? ARE MENSHEVIKS ENTITLED TO SUPPORT CADETS? 195

“In its election campaign, the R.S.D.L.P., acting as an independent class party of the proletariat, sets itself the aim... 2) to explain to the masses that all hopes for a peaceful outcome of the struggle for power are illusory. “...4) to stimulate the political activity of the masses and, organising the forces of the revolution outside and inside the Duma, to create conditions for transforming the latter into a strongpoint of the revolution....” Starting from November 1906, the Mensheviks have moved so far over to the right that they at once broke their own resolution. Their first step tends to disorganise the “forces of the revolution” inside the Duma, fortifying the masses in the hope of a peaceful outcome, for a Cadet presidium elected by the entire Duma, without a protest from the Left, would be an official nation-wide confirmation by the Social-Democrats of the very hopes which they recognise as being “illusory”. The Cadets have openly and totally turned away from the revolution. The “forces of the revolution” are the Left, the Trudoviks, the S.R.s (the revolutionary bourgeoisie) and the Social-Democrats. To help organise, instead of disorganising, the “forces of the revolution” we are duty- bound to tell the masses: the Social-Democrats support a Left-wing, Trudovik presidium against the Cadets. In the event a Trudovik presidium were elected and failed to live up to democratic hopes, we should then use this to expose the democratic petty bourgeoisie before the mass, thereby strengthening the conviction that the proletariat is the only consistently democratic class. What did the C.C. tell the Party and the people when starting the election campaign? We find that the official electoral platform of the R.S.D.L.P. says: “...Citizens, the only men to elect to the Duma should be those who not only want Russia to be free, but strive to help the people’s revolution to win this freedom.... The First Duma failed to do this. Its majority, led by the ‘people’s freedom’ party, had hoped to secure freedom and and through peaceful negotiations with the government.... That is why it is not meek petitioners that should be elected to the Duma.... Citizens, elect revolutionary fighters who 196 V. I. LENIN will join you in carrying forward the great cause started in January, October and December of last year.” What fine, grand words, fitting for the proletariat! What a pity that for the Mensheviks they have turned out to be empty words. In their party electoral platform they condemned the Cadet majority in the First Duma and its Cadet policies, but are now helping artificially to restore Cadet hegemony in the Left-wing Duma.

Novy Luch No. 3,Printed from the February 22, 1907Novy Luch text

REPLY TO L. MARTOV 242

That same issue of Russkaya Zhizn243 carries Comrade L. Martov’s feuilleton in which he returns to our editorial in No. 2* and, ignoring the explanation given by the group’s committee on this matter, administers justice and metes out punishment. What does Comrade Martov wish to achieve by this strange step? If he wants to challenge us to fight in this plane—in the plane of personal attacks and suspicions—he is making a big mistake. We are not going to follow him. We have a great deal too many essential differences over which we shall have to conduct a principled struggle in the group, in the press and in the Party, to allow ourselves to be pushed into the dirt road of petty scores and squabbles. Good luck, comrade, you can travel that road alone; we are not coming. We are glad to let you have the honour of putting in the last word which is, in fact, the very limit.

Novy Luch No. 7, Printed from the February 27, 1907 Novy Luch text

* See present edition, Vol. 12, pp. 156-60.—Ed. THE FIFTH CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 197

THE FIFTH CONGRESS OF THE R.S.D.L.P.244 APRIL 30 -MAY 9 (MAY 13 - JUNE 1), 1907

1 SPEECH AGAINST THE PROPOSAL TO CLOSE THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF THE CONGRESS AGENDA245 MAY 1 (14) I object most strongly against the closure of the debate. You cannot decide questions of principle mechanically by a simple vote.

First published in 1909 in the book Printed from Londonsky syezd R.S.D.R.P. the text (sostoyavshiisya v 1907 godu). of the book Polny tekst protokolov (London Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., 1907. Full Text of the Proceedings), Central Committee publication, Paris

2 SPEECH IN DEFENCE OF THE NAME- TICKET VOTE METHOD246 MAY 2 (15) Together with the representative of the Latvian delegation, we insist on the preservation of the name-ticket voting procedure used until today. It is the most democratic, saves time and ensures clarity. There can be no question at all of rigging. Those who propose a roll-call vote merely wish to drag things out, thereby making name-ticket voting impossible.

First published in 1909 in the book Printed from Londonsky syezd R.S.D.R.P. the text (sostoyavshiisya v 1907 godu). of the book Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Paris 198 V. I. LENIN

3 SPEECHES FROM THE CHAIR OF THE SIXTH SITTING OF THE CONGRESS MAY 3 (16)

1 I propose a vote of thanks to the representatives of the British Social-Democratic Federation for their help in arranging the Congress. (Applause.)

2 I propose that we discuss the order of the items: C.C. report, report by the Duma group, and attitude to bourgeois parties and the Duma. A unanimous decision has been taken by the representatives of all groups to arrange the other items in the following order: 5) labour congress, 6) trade unions and the Party, 7) unorganised action, 8) unemployment, the crisis and the lock-outs, 9) organisational questions, 10) Stuttgart Congress, 11) work in the army, 12) miscellanea. First published in 1909 in the book Printed from Londonsky syezd R.S.D.R.P. the text (sostoyavshiisya v 1907 godu). of the book Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Paris

4 OBJECTION TO LIEBER’S AMENDMENT TO THE BOLSHEVIK RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE CONGRESS ON THE ATTITUDE TO BOURGEOIS PARTIES247 MAY 15 (28) Lieber is wrong. This shows up the worth of Lieber’s amendments. His is a schoolboy statement, and it is characteristic of his lack of principle. First published in 1909 in the book Printed from Londonsky syezd R.S.D.R.P. the text (sostoyavshiisya v 1907 godu). of the book Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Paris ON TASKS OF PROLETARIAT AT CURRENT STAGE 199

5 SPEECH ON DESIGNATING THE CONGRESS248 MAY 19 (JUNE 1) I am surprised that the Mensheviks are afraid to call this the Fifth Congress. Do they think that our history is any sort of secret?

First published in 1909 in the bookPrinted from Londonsky syezd R.S.D.R.P.the text (sostoyavshiisya v 1907 godu).of the book Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Paris

ON THE TASKS OF THE PROLETARIAT AT THE CURRENT STAGE OF THE BOURGEOIS-DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION 249

Considering: 1) that because of the drawn-out economic crisis through which Russia is now going, and in connection with the extreme intensification of government reaction, there is a marked sharpening of class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and also a deepening and extension of the peasants’ struggle against the old system; 2) that this last year of the revolution has been marked by a rapid growth of the political awareness of all classes, a strengthening of the wing parties, a decline of constitutional illusions, a weakening of the “centre”, i.e., the liberal parties, striving to stop the revolution by means of concessions acceptable to the Black-Hundred landowners and the autocracy; 3) that the class interests of the proletariat in the bourgeois revolution demand the creation of conditions which would open up the possibility for the broadest struggle against the propertied classes, for socialism; 4) that the only way to create these conditions is to win a democratic republic, full popular power and the minimum of social and economic demands necessary for the proletariat (8-hour working day and other demands of the Social-Democratic minimum programme); 200 V. I. LENIN

5)that the proletariat alone is capable of carrying the democratic revolution to the end, provided that, as the only consistently revolutionary class in contemporary society, it leads the mass of peasants in a relentless struggle against the landowners’ estates and the serf-owning state, the Congress recognises: a)that the main task of the proletariat at the current historical moment is to carry the democratic revolution in Russia forward to the end; b)that any minimisation of this task inevitably results in the working class being transformed from the leader of the people’s revolution carrying with it the mass of the democratic peasantry, into a passive participant in the revolution tailing behind the liberal bourgeoisie; c)that while supporting the implementation of this task with all its strength, the Social-Democratic Party should never lose sight of the proletariat’s independent, socialist aims.

Written between May 21 and 25 (June 3 and 7), 1907 Published on July 7, 1907Printed from the in the newspaper Zihña No. 78newspaper text Translated from the Latvian

NOTES TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE STUTTGART CONGRESS ON “MILITARISM AND INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS” 250

Accordingly, the Congress considers it to be the duty of the working class and especially of its representatives in the parliaments, in view of the class character of bourgeois society, to use every means to struggle against and to deny appropriations for the aggressive policy of states, and to act in such a way as to educate working-class youth in the spirit of socialism and an awareness of the brotherhood of nations.*) ... *) The Russian amendment also had this provision: “in such a way that the ruling classes would not dare to use it (youth) as an instrument to consolidate their class domination against the lighting proletariat”. These words were deleted by the commission not because anyone disagreed NOTES TO CLARA ZETKIN’S ARTICLE 201 with them in principle, but because they were regarded by the Germans as being illegal and capable of providing a pretext for the dissolution of German Social-Democratic organisations. This abridgement did not alter the essential meaning of the corresponding passage of the resolution. ... In the event of a danger of war, the working class and its parliamentary representatives in the countries concerned must, relying on the support of the International Bureau, do everything they can to prevent a declaration of war, by every means which they consider reasonable, and the choice of which depends on the degree of aggravation of the class struggle and the general political situation.*) ... *)The Russian amendment said that these means (to prevent war) are changed and intensified (sich ändern und steigern) depending on the aggravation of the class struggle, etc. The commission deleted “intensified”, leaving only “changed”. Written in the second half of August 1907 Published in early September 1907Printed from in the first collection of Golosthe text of Zhizni, St. Petersburgthe collection

NOTES TO CLARA ZETKIN’S ARTICLE “INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONGRESS IN STUTTGART”251 INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONGRESS IN STUTTGART*) *) This article is a translation of an editorial in the German Social-Democratic fortnightly Die Gleichheit (Equality),252 which is edited by Clara Zetkin and is the organ of the women’s labour movement in Germany. The assessment of the Stuttgart Congress is here given with remarkable correctness and talent: clear, concise and bold propositions sum up the tremendous ideological context of the Congress debates and resolutions. For our part, we add several notes to this article to indicate to the Russian reader some facts coming from the West-European socialist press, facts largely distorted by our Cadet and semi-Cadet news- 202 V. I. LENIN papers (like Tovarishch253), which have told many lies about the Stuttgart Congress. ... The question of relations between the Social-Democrats and the trade unions went best to show the unanimity of class-conscious proletarians of all countries. No one any longer objected in principle against the basic historical tendency of the proletarian class struggle— to connect as closely as possible the political and the economic struggle, and also organisations in both, into a single force of the socialist working class. Only the representative of the Russian Social-Democrats, Plekhanov, and the majority of the French delegation fell back on rather unsatisfactory arguments*) in an effort to justify some restrictions on this principle by referring to the special conditions prevailing in their countries. ... *) The Russian Social-Democratic delegation in Stutt- gart had a preliminary discussion of the questions in substance with a view to appointing its representatives to the commission. In the commission on relations between the trade unions and the socialist parties, Plekhanov did not represent all the Russian Social-Democrats, but only the Mensheviks. Plekhanov went into the commission to stand up for the principle of “neutrality”. The Bolsheviks sent Voinov to the commission and he stood up for the Party’s view, i.e., the decision in the spirit of the London Congress against neutrality, and for the closest contacts between the trade unions and the Party. Consequently, Clara Zetkin regarded as “unsatisfactory” the arguments not of the R.S.D.L.P. representative, but of the representative of the Menshevik opposition in the R.S.D.L.P. ... And here, ultimately, the revolutionary energy and indomitable faith of the working class in its own fighting capacity won out, on the one hand, over the pessimistic credo of its own impotence and hidebound stand for the old and exclusively parliamentary methods of struggle, and on the other, oversimplified anti-militarist sport of the French semi-anarchists à la Hervé.*) ... *) The author of the article, while contrasting the two deviations from socialism rejected by the Congress: Hervé’s semi-anarchism, and opportunism, included in the “exclusively parliamentary” forms of struggle, fails to name any spokesmen of this opportunism. In the commission of the NOTES TO CLARA ZETKIN’S ARTICLE 203

Stuttgart Congress, on the question of militarism, the same antithesis was made by Vandervelde when he objected to the opportunist speech of Vollmar. Vollmar hints at Hervé’s expulsion, said Vandervelde, but I protest against this and warn Vollmar, because the expulsion of the extreme Left- wingers would suggest the idea of expelling the extreme Right-wingers (Vollmar is one of the most “Rightist” German opportunists). ... Finally, on the question of women’s suffrage as well, the sharply principled class standpoint, which regards women’s suffrage as nothing but an organic part of the proletariat’s class right and class cause, won out over the opportunist bourgeois view which hopes to wheedle out of the ruling classes a mutilated and curtailed suffrage for women.*) ... *) At the Congress in Stuttgart, this bourgeois standpoint was backed only by an Englishwoman from the Fabian Society (a quasi-socialist organisation of British intellectuals taking an extremely opportunist stand). ... At the same time, the Congress—confirming the resolution of the International Women’s Conference on this point—stated unequivocally that in their struggle for suffrage the socialist parties must put forward and uphold the principled demand for women’s suffrage, regardless of any “considerations of convenience”.*) ... *) A hint at the Austrian Social-Democrats. Both at the International Socialist Women’s Conference and in the Congress committee dealing with the women’s question, there was a polemic between the German and the Austrian Social-Democratic women. Clara Zetkin had earlier reproached the Austrian Social-Democrats in the press for pushing into the background the demand for women’s suffrage in their agitation for electoral rights. The Austrians put up a very lame defence, and Victor Adler’s amendment, which very cautiously conducted “Austrian opportunism” in this question, was rejected in the commission by 12 votes to 9.

Written in September and early October 1907 Published in October 1907 in the Printed from collection Zarnitsy, issue I, the text of St. Petersburg the collection 204 V. I. LENIN

ANTI-MILITARIST PROPAGANDA AND YOUNG SOCIALIST WORKERS’ LEAGUES

It will be recalled that the International Socialist Con- gress in Stuttgart discussed the question of militarism and in connection with it the question of anti-militarist propaganda. The resolution adopted on the point says, in part, that the Congress regards it as a duty of the working classes to “help to have working class youth brought up in a spirit of international brotherhood and socialism and imbued with class consciousness”. The Congress regards this as an earnest of the army ceasing to be a blind instrument in the hands of the ruling classes, which they use as they see fit and which they can direct against the people at any time. It is very hard, sometimes almost impossible, to conduct propaganda among soldiers on active service. Life in the barracks, strict supervision and rare leave make contact with the outer world extremely difficult; military discipline and the absurd spit and polish cow the soldier. Army commanders do everything they can to knock the “nonsense” out of the “brutes”, to purge them of every unconventional thought and every human emotion and to instil in them a sense of blind obedience and an unthinking wild hatred for “internal” and “external” enemies.... It is much harder to make an approach to the lone, ignorant and cowed soldier who is isolated from his fellow-men and whose head has been stuffed with the wildest views on every possible subject, than to draft-age young men living with their families and friends and closely bound up with them by common interest. Everywhere anti-militarist propaganda among young workers has yielded excellent results. That is of tremendous importance. The worker who goes into the army a class- conscious Social-Democrat is a poor support for the powers that be. There are young socialist workers’ leagues in all European countries. In some, for instance, Belgium, Austria and Sweden, these leagues are large-scale organisations carrying on responsible party work. Of course, the main aim of the youth leagues is self-education and the working out of ANTI-MILITARIST PROPAGANDA AND YOUTH LEAGUES 205 a distinct and integrated socialist outlook. But the youth leagues also carry on practical work. They struggle for an improvement in the condition of apprentices and try to protect them from unlimited exploitation by their employers. The young socialist workers’ leagues devote even more time and attention to anti-militarist propaganda. For that purpose, they try to establish close ties with young soldiers. This is done in the following way. Before the young worker has joined the army, he is a member of a league and pays membership dues. When he becomes a soldier, the league continues to maintain constant contacts with him, regularly sending him small cash aids (“soldier’s sous” as they call them in France), which, however small, are of substantial importance to the soldier. For his part, he undertakes to provide the league with regular information about everything that goes on in his barracks and to write about his impressions. Thus, even after he joins the army, the soldier does not break off his ties with the organisation of which he was a member. An effort is always made to drive the soldier as far away from home as possible for his service. This is done with the intention of preventing the soldier from being tied with the local population by any interest, and to make him feel alien to it. It is then easier to make him carry out orders: to shoot at a crowd. Young workers’ leagues try to bridge this alienation between the soldier and the local population. Youth leagues are connected with each other. When he arrives in a new town, the soldier, a former member of a youth league at home, is met by the local league as a welcome visitor, and he is at once brought into the circle of local interests and helped in every possible way. He ceases to be a new-comer and a stranger. He is also aware that if any misfortune befalls him he will receive help and support. This awareness adds to his courage, he gains assur- ance in his behaviour in the barracks, and is bolder in standing up for his rights and his human dignity. Their close ties with young soldiers enable the youth leagues to carry on extensive anti-militarist propaganda among the soldiers. This is done mainly with the aid of anti-militarist literature, which the youth leagues publish and circulate in great quantities, especially in France, 206 V. I. LENIN

Belgium and also in Switzerland, Sweden, etc. This literature is highly diverse: postcards with anti-militarist pic- tures, anti-militarist army songs (many of these songs are very popular among the soldiers), “soldier’s catechism” (in France it was circulated in more than 100,000 copies), all sorts of pamphlets, leaflets, appeals; weekly, fortnightly and monthly newspapers and magazines for soldiers, some of them illustrated. Barracks, Recruit, Young Soldier, Pju pju (a pet name for the young recruit), and Forward are very widely circulated. For example, in Belgium the newspapers Recruit and Barracks have a printing of 60,000 copies each. Especially many magazines are published at the time of the draft. Special issues of soldiers’ newspapers are mailed to the homes of all recruits. Anti-militarist literature is delivered to soldiers in the barracks and handed out to them in the streets; soldiers find it in coffee-houses and pubs, and everywhere else they go. Recruits receive special attention. They are given a cere- monial send-off. During the recruitment, processions are staged in the towns. In Austria, for instance, recruits walk through the town dressed in mourning and to the strains of funeral marches. In front of them rolls a decorated red carriage. All the walls are plastered with red posters which say in large letters: “You will not shoot at the people!” Evening parties with ardent anti-militarist speeches are held in honour of the recruits. In short, everything is done to awaken the recruit’s consciousness, to ensure him against the evil influence of the ideas and emotions which will be instilled into him in the barracks by fair means and foul. The work of the socialist youth is not in vain. In Belgium, there are almost 15 soldiers’ unions in the army, which are mostly affiliated with the Social-Democratic Labour Party and are closely allied with each other. In some regiments, two-thirds of the soldiers are organised. In France, the anti-militarist mood has become massive. During the strikes at Dünkirchen, Creusot, Loguivi, Monso-le-Min the soldiers ordered against the strikers declared their solidarity with the workers.... As time goes on, there are more and more Social- Democrats in the army and the troops become increasingly less reliable. When the bourgeoisie has to confront the organ- HOW THE SOCIALIST-REVOLUTIONARIES WRITE HISTORY 207 ised working class, whom will the army back? The young socialist workers are working with all the enthusiasm and energy of the young to have the army side with the people.

Vperyod No. 16, Printed from the October 8 , 1907 Vperyod text

HOW THE SOCIALIST-REVOLUTIONARIES WRITE HISTORY

In No. 5 of Znamya Truda,254 the Central Organ of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, we find an editorial on the Stutt- gart Congress, which is written in a torrent of words and immoderate boasting, the habitual style of the S.R.s. There is a reprint of the telegram in which the C.C. of the S.R. Party informed Europe that “the revolutionary struggle commands it to remain at its post”. The selfsame C.C. voices its complete satisfaction over the “usual energy” displayed by the Socialist-Revolutionary representative in the Bureau.255 “By its resolution, the Socialist Interna- tional endorsed the view of the trade union movement which we have always supported,” Znamya Truda assures us. Despite the dogmatist Kautsky, the Congress “turned out to be on our side” on the question of a legislative introduction of a minimum wage. Within three years, “we Russian socialists have grown into a great mass party, a fact the International has openly and respectfully (!!!) recognised”. In short, thirty thousand couriers were dispatched from Europe to pay their respects to the Socialist-Revolution- aries. Meanwhile, the malignant Social-Democrats carried on with their “petty intrigues” in the Russian section, namely, they fought against the equality of votes for the S.D.s and the S.R.s which the Socialist-Revolutionaries demanded. The Social-Democrats demanded 11 votes for themselves, 6 for the Socialist-Revolutionaries and 3 for the trade unions. The Bureau resolved: 10 for the S.D.s, 7 for the S.R.s and 3 or the trade unions. “Adler and Bebel, who voted against our demand, declared that they had no wish at all to mini- 208 V. I. LENIN mise the importance of the S.R. Party, which they recognised as an important factor of Russian socialism and the revolution. But they wanted to be fair and to state the approx- imate balance of forces” (Znamya Truda). Our Khlestakovs256 are imprudent, oh so imprudent! There was not and could not have been any question in the Bureau either of the significance of the S.R.s, or of the “important factor”. Once a party has been admitted to the Congress and the Bureau, the Bureau and its members will not bother to assess its significance and importance. The only thing the Bureau can assess is the strength of the parties for apportioning the votes. Bebel and Adler agreed with the arguments of our Social-Democratic representative in the Bureau that the S.D.s and the S.R.s are not equal in strength. Having agreed with these arguments, they naturally noted that they were not passing judgement either on principles or trends, that they were not deciding on the dispute between the S.D. and the S.R. programmes, but were merely weighing their strength for apportioning the votes. It is entirely in the Khlestakov spirit to interpret this self-evident reservation to mean recognition of the Socialist-Revolutionaries as “an important factor”. The S.R.s are being doubly imprudent when, in reporting from memory and distorting the meaning of Bebel and Adler’s reservation, they say nothing at all about the arguments on the substance of the case. They give us Bebel’s reservations with embellishments, but are silent on the substance of our dispute. Why is that so? In substance, our representatives in the Bureau had the following argument. The Social-Democrat referred to the number of deputies in the Second Duma as the most precise criterion of party strength, adding that the electoral law favoured the peasants over the workers. The S.R. replied that apart from the S.R. group there were some near-S.R.s in the Duma—the Trudoviks and the Popular Socialists. A portion of them, he implied, should be added to the S.R.s! Besides, the Popular Socialists have some “first-class writers” (“écrivains de premier ordre”, said Rubanovich). Those were the Socialist-Revolutionary’s very words. To this the S.D. representative replied: indeed, the Popu- lar Socialists do have some “first-class writers” as do the THIRD DUMA AND SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY 209

French Radical-Socialists and the Radicals,257 say, a man like Clemenceau (also a “first-class writer”). But is it proper for an independent party to refer to another party as evidence of its own strength? Is it proper, when the “first-class writers” among the Popular Socialists have not the slightest intention of requesting admission to the Con- gress? Is it proper, let us add, to present oneself as an ultra- revolutionary in Russia and to drag along the Popular Socialists for help in Europe?

Proletary No. 17, Printed from the October 20, 1907 Proletary text

THE THIRD DUMA AND SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY

The Third Duma,258 convened on the basis of the electoral law which was promulgated by the tsar after the dissolution of the Second Duma on June 3, 1907, opened on November 1, 1907. The old electoral law, issued on December 11, 1905,259 was a far cry from universal, direct, and equal suffrage by secret ballot, and distorted the will of the people, turning the Duma into an ugly expression of that will— especially after the “interpretation” of the law given in the Second Duma by the Senate, consisting of old civil servants and justices entirely subservient to the tsarist autocracy. On June 3, the tsar deprived the workers, peasants and urban poor of the trifling electoral rights they had enjoyed. In this way, the autocracy committed another heinous crime against the people by forging popular representation and handing the Duma over to the landowners and capitalists, the mainstay of the tsarist autocracy and the age-old oppressors of the people. That they would dominate the Duma could have been predicted. That is exactly what happened. At present, returns are in on the election of 439 members of the Duma. The eight non-party members aside, the other 431 belong to four main groups: 1) the largest—the Right- wingers, Black-Hundred deputies, numbering 187; 2) then the Octobrists260 and parties close to them, numbering 119; 210 V. I. LENIN

3) the Cadets and like-minded men, 93; 4) the Left-wingers, 32 (of them, 16 to 18 Social-Democrats). Everyone knows who the Black-Hundred men are. It is true that among their adherents there is a section of ignorant, unclass-conscious workers, peasants and urban poor, but their governing core consists of feudal-minded landowners, for whom the preservation of the autocracy is the only salvation, because it alone can help them to plunder the public till, receiving grants, loans, good salaries and handouts of every sort; the autocracy with its police and army alone gives them the possibility of keeping in bondage the peasantry, which suffers from lack of land and is fettered with labour services and irredeemable debts and arrears. The Octobrists also include landowners, mainly those who engage in large-scale sales of grain from their estates and require the patronage of the autocracy to secure lower customs tariffs on their grain abroad, to keep down the costs of transporting the grain abroad by Russian railroad and to secure the best possible prices from the treasury when it purchases the alcohol, which many landowners produce from potatoes and grain at their distilleries, for the vodka monopoly. But apart from these predatory and greedy landowners, many of the Octobrists are equally predatory and greedy capitalist manufacturers, factory-owners and bankers. They, too, are in need of the government’s patronage to secure high tariffs on foreign goods, so that Russian goods could be sold at three times their price, to secure fat contracts from the treasury for the capitalist factories, etc. They want the police and the army to turn the workers into the same sort of slaves that the peasants are under the feudal-minded landowners. Naturally, the Octobrists are very close to the Black- Hundred men. Should the Duma examine government revenue and expenditure—they will put their heads together to see that the full burden of the taxes falls on the peasants, the workers and the urban poor, while the revenues go into the pockets of the capitalists, the landowners and senior civil servants. Should the question arise of allocating land to the peasants or improving the condition of the workers— the Black-Hundred men and the Octobrists will pull together to sell, at a threefold price, only those lands which they THIRD DUMA AND SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY 211 do not need, stripping the peasants, impoverished as they are, of everything they have; they will try very hard to fetter the hands and feet of the workers, who are already hard pressed by the burden of capitalist exploitation. And, of course, both the Black-Hundred men and the Octobrists will strain very hard to have the largest possible police and army to provide protection for their “precious” life and their “sacrosanct” property: after all, they fear the revolution like the plague, they are terrified by the prospect of a mighty drive by the workers and peasants rising to the great struggle for liberty and land. Together the Octobrists and the Black-Hundred men will constitute a vast majority in the Third Duma: 306 out of 439 members. This majority can do just what it wants. It is against the revolution, or, as the more common saying is, it is counter-revolutionary. But there may be questions on which the Octobrists will differ with the majority of the Black Hundreds. The latter’s effrontery knows no bounds. They are sure that the police truncheon, the whip, the machine-gun and the bayonet alone will put down any revolution, any popular urge for light and freedom. They would like to rely on the autocracy and do as they wish with the public revenue, using it for their own benefit, taking over all the lucrative posts and treating the country as their own estate. The Octobrists remember that up to now the landowners and the civil servants have run things in a way that gave them everything and left hardly enough for the capitalists. Two plun- derers—a Black-Hundred man and an Octobrist—quarrel over a succulent titbit, over who is to get more. The Octo- brists refuse to let the Black Hundreds have everything or even the greater share: just recently, the Japanese war gave them an object lesson, making them realise that the Black Hundreds bungled things in such a way that they inflicted losses even on themselves, to say nothing of the capitalists and the merchants. That is why the Octobrists want to take over some of the power in the state and wish to frame the constitution for their own benefit and, naturally, not for the benefit of the people. In so doing the Octobrists want to deceive the people by diverse laws which have the appearance of introducing reforms and improving things for the state and the people, but actually serve the 212 V. I. LENIN interests of the rich. Like the Black Hundreds, they are of course prepared to rely on the machine-gun, the bayonet and the whip against the revolution, but to be on the safe side they want to seal the eyes of the masses with the aid of fraudulent reforms. To do all this, the Octobrists need allies other than the Black Hundreds. It is true that in these matters as well they hope to detach a section of the Right wing from the ultra-Black Hundreds of the Union of the Russian People,261 but that is not enough. That is why they have to seek for other allies who are also hostile to the revolution, but who are enemies of the Black Hundreds, favour fraudulent or petty reforms, and support the constitution in the interests of the big and possibly a section of the middle bourgeoisie. It is easy for the Octobrists to find such allies in the Duma: they are the Cadets, a party of that section of the landowners, the big and middle bourgeoisie which has quite adapted itself to conducting a really good capitalist economy, like that in the West-European countries, and based likewise on the exploitation and oppression of the workers, the peasants and the urban poor, but an exploitation which is clever, subtle and artful, an exploitation you do not see right through all at once. There are many landowners in the Cadet Party engaged in real capitalist operations, and similar factory-owners and bankers, many lawyers, professors and doctors with good incomes, derived from the rich. It is true that in their programme the Cadets promised the people a great many things: there was universal suffrage and all the freedoms, an 8-hour working day, and land for the peasants. But all that was said merely to attract the masses of people, for they never actually made any straightforward proposal for universal suffrage even in the first two Dumas; their bills on the freedoms were in fact aimed at giving the people as little freedom as possible; in the Second Duma they proposed a 10-hour day instead of the 8-hour day, and they were prepared to let the peasants have land which was of no use to the capitalist economy, and which carried redemption payments, and let them have so little of it that even if the peasants got it, they would still have to work for a wage on the neigh- THIRD DUMA AND SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY 213 bouring landowners’ estates. That was a clever trick to which the workers did not rise at all, very few peasants did and only some of the urban poor actually took the Cadets at their word. Today, after the dissolution of the two Dumas, the Cadets have grown very quiet and are making up to the Octobrists: they declared that they regard the revolutionaries and especially the Social-Democrats as their enemies, and, believing the Octobrists to be constitutional-minded, voted for an Octobrist to fill the post of Duma Chairman. The deal is ready. It is true that Minister Stolypin does not apparently want a permanent deal and wants to keep the Cadets in submission, thereby exerting an influence on the Octobrists, but inFROM practice there MARX will still be constituted another majority in the Duma—the Octobrists and the Cadets. Together they number 212, slightlyTO MAO less than half, but they will also have the non-party men behind them, and these number 8, so that the majority will be there; and even among the Rightists some might vote with the Octobrists and the Cadets on some questions. Of course, this other majority will also be counter-revolutionary and will fight against the revolution; it will merely cover up with trifling reforms which are of no use to the people. Can these two majorities in the Third Duma defeat the revolution? NOT FOR The great Russian revolution cannot stop until the peasants receive land in any appreciable quantity and until the masses of peopleCOMMERCIAL secure the main influence on the administration of the state. Can we expect the two Duma majorities to produceDISTRIBUTION all that? The question is in itself ridiculous: can the feudal-minded landowners and plunderous capitalists be expected to give land to the peasants and give up the supreme power to the people? No! They will throw a starving peasant a crust, after stripping him of everything he has, and they will help only the kulaks and the sharks to make themselves comfortable, taking all the power for themselves and leaving the people oppressed and subjugated. The Social-Democrats must naturally do everything they can to continue the people’s great cause—the revolution, the struggle for liberty and land. In the Duma, the government behind the Octobrists, and the Cadets want to play a double game. The government, 214 V. I. LENIN while stepping up its persecutions and putting down Russia with the aid of bayonet, noose, prison cell and prison camp, pretends to be an advocate of reform. The Cadets, who have actually embraced the Octobrists, pretend that they are real champions of liberty. Both want to cheat the people and stamp out the revolution. Let us see that this does not happen! The Social-Demo- crats, consistent and loyal fighters for nation-wide emancipation, will unmask the hypocrites and the cheats. Inside and outside the Duma they will expose the tyrannies of the Black-Hundred landowners and the government, and the Cadet tricks. They will—they must—understand that there is now need for more than a relentless struggle against the government; the Cadets must not be given either direct or indirect support. The Social-Democrats must above all raise their voice to expose most sternly and relentlessly the foul tsarist crime perpetrated on June 3, 1907. Let the proletariat’s spokesmen in the Duma explain to the people that the Third Duma cannot serve their interests, that it cannot meet their demands and that this can be done only by a sovereign constituent assembly elected through universal, direct and equal suffrage by secret ballot. The government will propose new laws. The Octobrists, the Cadets and the Black Hundreds will do the same. All these laws will be a brazen swindle of the people, a gross violation of their rights and interests, a mockery of their demands, a mockery of the blood shed by the people in the struggle for liberty. All these laws will provide protection for the interests of the landowners and the capitalists. Each of these laws will be a fresh link in the chains of bondage which the oppressors and the parasites want to clamp on the workers, the peasants and the urban poor. Not everyone will understand this right away. But the So- cial-Democrats know and understand this, and that is why they will expose this boldly before the cheated people. In so doing, they must devote special attention to the laws which relate to the people’s most vital needs: the laws on land, the laws on labour, on state revenue and expenditure. In branding the violence and fraud of the feudal-minded landowners and the capitalists, the Social-Democrats must THIRD DUMA AND SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY 215 explain their demands to the entire people: full powers for the people (a democratic republic), unrestricted liberty and equality, the 8-hour working day and the easing of working conditions for labour, confiscation of large estates and the handing of land over to the peasants. They must also point to the great goal which the proletariat of all countries sets itself—socialism, complete abolition of wage slavery. Alongside the Social-Democrats in the Duma there is a small group of Left-wingers, mainly the Trudoviks. The Social-Democrats should urge these men to go along with them. This is especially necessary when there is occasion to direct questions to the government which is running ram- pant all over Russia like a wild beast. Every day, the watch- dogs of tsarism—the police, the gendarmes—and the higher authorities—ministers and governors—permit themselves gross acts of violence and lawlessness. They must be exposed and branded. And it is up to the Social-Democrats to do this. But a question to the government requires the signatures of 30 members of the Duma, and the Social- Democrats will hardly number more than 18. Together with the other Left-wingers they are 32. The Social-Demo- crats must draw up the questions and urge the Left-wingers to join them. If the Leftists really cherish the great cause of liberty, they must do so. A heavy blow will then be inflicted on the government, like those the Social-Democrats inflicted on it with their questions in the Second Duma. Such are the main tasks of the Social-Democrats in the Third Duma. Our comrades have some hard work to do. They will be there among enemies, malicious and ruthless. Efforts will be made to stop their mouths, and they will be showered with abuse, they will perhaps be expelled from the Duma, brought to trial, thrown into prison and exiled. They must be firm, in spite of all persecutions, they must hold high the proletariat’s red banner and remain loyal to the end to the great cause of struggle for the people’s emancipation. And all of us, comrades workers, must join forces in supporting them; we must lend a sensitive ear to their every word, respond to it, discuss their acts at meetings and rallies, reinforcing by our sympathies and approval their every correct step, helping them with all our strength 216 V. I. LENIN and resources in the struggle for the cause of the revolution. Let the working class be united in supporting its spokesmen, and in so doing may it strengthen its unity which it needs in the great struggle—the time when the “last decisive battle” is fought.

Vperyod No. 18,Printed from the November 1907Vperyod text

PLENARY MEETING OF THE R.S.D.L.P. CENTRAL COMMITTEE 262 AUGUST 11 - 13 (ù4 - ù6), 1908

1 STATEMENT ON THE CONVOCATION OF THE C.C. PLENARY MEETING

Statement: In view of the fact that attempts are being made to obscure the initial point of the incident under discussion, I categor- ically declare that at the outset I made a very definite statement of the following: According to Grigory’s communication, Ezra wrote to him that the minor brother denies the Existenzrecht* of the plenary C.C. It is this communication which has been entirely confirmed by Grigory, and not clearly refuted by Ezra, that constitutes the illegality of the act by the Mensheviks and the illegality of discussing such questions by the Bund Cen- tral Committee. I insist, therefore, on a search for the text of the letter itself. Lenin

Motioned on August 12 (25), 1908 First published in 1933 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXV the original

* The right to exist—Ed. PLENARY MEETING OF THE R.S.D.L.P. C.C. 217

2 DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE INCIDENT OVER THE CONVOCATION OF THE C.C. PLENARY MEETING The C.C authorises the C.C. Bureau Abroad263 to draw up a detailed report of the so-called incident over the convocation of the C.C. Plenary Meeting, Ezra’s letters, Pyotr’s statements and all the debates, and have this report preserved in the archives of the Central Committee, leaving it to the narrow C.C. to publish the report whenever the need arises.

Motioned on August 13 (26), 1908 First published in 1933 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXV the original

3 DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THIS ORGANISATION OF THE CENTRAL BUREAU ABROAD 1) Social-Democratic groups abroad shall be recognised as R.S.D.L.P. promotion groups. 2) The C.C. shall appoint a new Central Bureau Abroad consisting of 10 persons. In the absence of the C.C. Plenary Meeting, co-optation or substitution shall take place only with the approval of the C.C. Bureau Abroad. 3) The C.B.A. shall cater for the needs of the promotion groups abroad and fulfil general Party assignments from the C.C. Bureau Abroad. 4) The Bureau Abroad shall include one member of the C.C. (by appointment of a Plenary Meeting or the Bureau Abroad) with the right of veto. 5) A congress of all available promotion groups abroad shall be organised as soon as possible under the control of the C.C. Bureau Abroad. 6) The standing rules of the congress shall be approved by the C.C. Bureau Abroad 7) The C.C. Bureau Abroad is authorised to take all steps to make the congress an occasion for unifying all non-Russian Social-Democratic groups abroad into integrated local R.S.D.L.P. promotion groups. The C.C. Bureau 218 V. I. LENIN

Abroad shall contact all the Central Committees of non-Rus- sian Social-Democratic organisations on this question. 8)The groups shall pay 85-90 per cent of their receipts into the C.C. fund. The right to grant exemption in case of dire necessity (for instance, expenditures on émigrés) shall belong to the C.C. Bureau Abroad.

Motioned on August 13 (26), 1908 First published in 1933Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXVthe original

THE FIFTH ALL-RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.264 DECEMBER ù1 - ùû, 1908 (JANUARY 3 - 9, 1909)

1 OUTLINE OF SPEECH ON THE QUESTION OF ORGANISATION265 I. Composition 12 apostles ]^5 [in]violable (belonging to angelic order)266 II. (A) 1. Strike movement and revolutionary onset; 2. Reformism and revolution; 3. Tasks of fighting nationalism; —raise before the congress; 4. How to work in legal societies. III. (B) (1) Duma group. (2) Legal newspapers. (3) Legal societies. (4) Illegal agitators and their secret slogans. IV. (C) Resolutions and their popularisation.... V. (D) Confidential agents and their promotion.

Written on December 24, 1908 (January 6, 1909) First published in 1933 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXV the original FIFTH ALL-RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 219

2 EXPLANATION TO SPEECH ON THE QUESTION OF ORGANISATION267

Statement of Fact I declare that in my speech on the organisational question, which alone was discussed today, I did not say nor did I intend to say a single word either about the attitude of the Caucasians to Golos Sotsial-Demokrata268 or about “Golos Sotsial-Demokrata” in general. That is why by starting his speech with a statement that on this question there were now no differences between the Caucasians and Golos Sotsial-Demokrata, Comrade Pyotr of Tiflis had no reason at all to mention my name. As for the earlier debates, I merely spoke of the differences between some members of the Golos Sotsial-Demokrata Editorial Board and the Caucasians, which were revealed at the August Plenary Meeting of the C.C. in 1908. N. Lenin Motioned on December 24, 1908 (January 6, 1909) First published in 1933 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXV the original

3 PROPOSAL ON PROCEDURE FOR VOTING RESOLUTIONS If there is no demand for a vote on any of the resolutions tabled by someone at the conference, the conference shall vote on the resolution concerning the direction of the committee’s work. If there is a preliminary demand for a vote on someone’s resolution as a basis right away, the demand shall be immediately complied with. N. Lenin

Motioned on December 24, 1908 (January 6, 1909) First published in 1933 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXV the original 220 V. I. LENIN

4 DRAFT RESOLUTION ON PUBLICATION OF CONFERENCE DECISIONS

The conference requests the C.C. to take steps to publish the conference resolutions and tabled drafts, and if possible, its minutes or a brief report as well.

Motioned on December 26, 1908 (January 8 , 1909) First published in 1933 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXV the original

5 STATEMENT OF FACT 269

I declare that I objected to Comrade Lyadov from the standpoint, which I repeatedly emphasised in my speech, that the C.C. has an unquestionable right of veto. N. Lenin Motioned on December 26, 1908 (January 8 , 1909) First published in 1933 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXV the original

6 STATEMENT CONCERNING THE MENSHEVIK DRAFT ON LIQUIDATING THE C.C.270

Statement of Fact The letter of Comrades Martynov and Igorev, which they had promised to place before the C.C. but have failed to do over a period of four months, did not deal with the way the C.C. was to function but with its “right to exist” (Existenzrecht), i.e., it dealt specifically with the liquidationist plans. N. Lenin Motioned on December 26, 1908 (January 8 , 1909) First published in 1933 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXV the original PLAN FOR LECTURES ON MARXISM 221

PLAN FOR LECTURES ON MARXISM 271 Marxism The Agrarian Question (α) Theory of surplus value (α) Commodity production (Mehrwert). in agriculture. (β) Economic development. (β) Small-scale vs. large- (γ) Class struggle. scale production. (δ) Philosophical material- (γ) Wage labour. ism. (δ) Rent. (α) 1. Earlier socialists: “unjust”, etc. A symptom of emotion instead of understanding. 2. “Labour principle” (in Russia). 3. Commodity production. 4. Capitalism. Theory of Mehrwert. (β) 1. Economic development. Industry (1907). 2. Russian handicraftsmen. 3. Agriculture. 4. Railways and trusts. 5. Finance capital. 6. Socialisation of production. Socialised labour and individual appropriation. (γ) 1. The proletariat and its cohesion (serf peasant—pauper—proletarian). 2. Separate strikes. “Wrecking” of machines. 3. Trade unions and the movement. 4. Political struggle: ] Britain—Liberals ] France—Radicals (Republicans) ] Germany—Liberals (1860s) and opportunists. 5. Revolutionary aims of the working class: expropriation of the capitalists. 6. Revolutionary struggle and struggle for reforms. (δ) Philosophical materialism. 1. Marx’s theory—integrated world outlook. 2. Two main world outlooks and philosophical starting - points: religious obscurantism and materialism. 3. Engels (Ludwig Feuerbach). 222 V. I. LENIN

4.1789 France—Hegel and Feuerbach in Germany (before 1848). 5.Dialectical materialism. 6.Russia:Chernyshevsky Narodniks present-day opportunists (Bogdanov).

Written in 1908 or 1909 First published in 1933Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXVthe original

CONFERENCE OF THE ENLARGED EDITORIAL BOARD OF “PROLETARY”272 JUNE 8 - 1û (ù1 - 30), 1909

1 SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION ON AGITATION FOR A BOLSHEVIK CONGRESS OR A BOLSHEVIK CONFERENCE SEPARATE FROM THE PARTY JUNE 8 (21)

1 It is said, on the one hand, that there are no differences of principle, and there is a refusal to make open statements, and on the other, there is talk of basic differences in the Bolshevik faction. Isn’t that duplicity? At the general Party conference Dan said: Doesn’t everyone know that Lenin is being accused of Menshevism? I replied: Read Proletary and judge on that basis, instead of collecting gossip. At the time, Maximov was silent. Nothing is worse than the absence of open struggle. I say: Our unity based on principle has been disrupted, you say something else, and yet you call Lenin Martov.... Why is the present meeting illegal in Party terms? Members of the Bolshevik Centre elected at the Congress are talking about how best to conduct Bolshevik views. What is so inadmissible about that? In agitating for a special Bolshevik congress you show that you have lost all faith in the Party principle. We have CONFERENCE OF PROLETARY ENLARGED EDITORIAL BOARD 223 always stood for the Party principle, ever since the Second Congress, and are now continuing the same line, while you are preaching a split at the grass roots. There is also a pro-Party trend among the Mensheviks. We believe in the Party principle and stand up for it.

First published in 1934 in the book Printed from the Protokoly soveshchania rasshirennoi text of the book redaktsii “Proletaria” verified with the (Minutes of the Proletary Enlarged minutes Editorial Board Conference)

2 Maximov says that there has been no agitation for a congress. Lyadov, Stanislav, and Vsevolod have spoken out with sufficient clarity. Since May 1908, Lyadov and Stanislav have been agitating in Russia. We have Stani- slav’s resolution, which says clearly enough what he wants.273 This is a mockery of our faction. The Mensheviks have an orthodox-Marxist, Plekhanovite, trend and the Bolsheviks also have an orthodox-Marxist trend. Both the Mensheviks and we have the Valentinov-Maximov liquidationist trend, etc. Concerning Comrade Maximov’s statement, I repeat that what I said was in reply to Maximov’s words: “a fully Leninist-Plekhanovite faction is crystallising”.

First published in 1934 in the book Printed from Protokoly soveshchania rasshirennoi the original redaktsii “Proletaria”

2 SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF OTZOVISM AND ULTIMATUMISM274 JUNE 9 (22)

I want to deal with the “idea of the centre”. Maximov has mixed things up over the Kotka conference275; this is how it was: if the Poles were in favour of a boycott and my vote were decisive, I declared that in that case I preferred to vote with the Bolsheviks. That was the condition I put in respect of the Poles. At that time, the whole Bolshevik Centre was against the boycott. The faction, however, was for the boycott, but there was no split, because 224 V. I. LENIN there was no group which wanted one. A year later, the faction turned out to be on our side. There are some “Bol- sheviks” who are afraid of hitting out at the otzovists and of siding with the Mensheviks. At the conference I joined with the Mensheviks against the otzovists. That is what you think about the centre. The story of the split as related by Maximov is a curious one. Maximov’s papers say nothing about the centre but Mikha’s letter has now been authenticated. The letter said that Lenin was conducting a Right-wing Bundist line. That is in the documents. Mikha wrote what Maximov is now saying. There is your idea of the centre. We got this letter from our Caucasian friends, who handed their mandate over to the Rightist Ilyich. Mikha conducted this policy in July 1908 with the participation of the group. Maximov says that we shall confer with Plekhanov. Of course, we shall, as we shall with Dan, and Martov in the C.O.276 It took a fierce struggle at the conference to get the otzovists to be loyal. We confronted them with ultimatums. When Axelrod read the point about military-combat tasks, he said: “It is not hard to work with such ‘Bolsheviks’.” We shall not let the otzovists into the Duma commissions, where we were with Dan. Indeed! We shall confer with Plekha- nov, as we shall with Dan and Martov. You can say as much in the press. In the C.C. I confer with Marat. You, Marat, are a member of the faction of-divine otzovists. I am not talking about good intentions but about the political line. I ask you, comrades, to give thought to what is being said about Ple- khanov. When Plekhanov speaks of his mistake in respect of the trade unions, we are reproached for failing to repulse him. When he is prepared to sacrifice his mistake, the question is whether we are attracting him by the article against Lunacharsky or whether you are repulsing the minority of the pro-Party Mensheviks277 and the orthodox-Marxist Mensheviks for the sake of Bogdanov-Lunacharsky anti- Marxist propaganda. We have not made a deal with Ple- khanov against Lunacharsky, but we can tell you who is flirting with whom. When Plekhanov kicks out Potresov, I am prepared to give him my hand. This is not a new centre, but a new caricatured Bolshevism. We are having CONFERENCE OF PROLETARY ENLARGED EDITORIAL BOARD 225 a replay of the old Rosa Luxemburg story.278 But the replay here is caricatured, and “Bolshevism” must be safeguarded from it. “Bolshevism” must now become strictly Marxist.

First published in 1934 in the book Printed from the Protokoly soveshchania rasshirennoi text of the book redaktsii “Proletaria” verified with the minutes

3 SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF THE PARTY SCHOOL ON CAPRI279 JUNE 10 (23)

I am surprised that we are not yet bored with all this. Comrade Maximov has no reason to be excited, because there has never been a single split without extreme accusations, and split incidents have always been confused with matters of honour. I remember the scenes with Kri- chevsky in 1901, with Martov in 1905, and with Plekha- nov in 1907—and all of them attacked me with cries about honour. It is not a question of honour, but of the fact that in the process of struggle men tend to disorganise their faction and organise a new one. Take Lyadov as an example. He has not become a bad comrade, but he is disorganising our faction and trying to set up a new one. I think that Maximov is disorganising those whom he believes to be Mensheviks. He has a perfect right to do that, but he keeps telling us about Lenin’s being invited to the school. The question of control is a ridiculous one too. We can’t have that. It is clear that the school is a new centre, a new trend. Marat says that he will not abandon his posts. You, Com- rade Marat, have succumbed to the factional fervour which is determined by the political struggle of the “divine” otzovists. What is a faction? It is an alliance of like-minded persons within a party. In the Duma, the party is an alliance of like-minded men inside the Duma. After all, when a member of the Duma, like Khomyakov, goes over to another party he does not cease to be its chairman. The same applies 226 V. I. LENIN to a faction in the party. The party alone can relieve you of the post which you have taken up on behalf of the party, We are now quarrelling—it is because we have no alliance of like-minded men. No one is encroaching on your Party post and there is no point in bringing it in. We do not have a split in the Party, but in the faction. The writ of our conference does not run to Party posts. And honour has nothing to do with all this. For my part, I am used to that sort of thing: this is the fourth time I am being abused. We must recognise what there is: two centres, two trends and the school as a fact. And when we group out, everything will be much clearer.

First published in 1934 in the book Printed from the Protokoly soveshchania rasshirennoi text of the book redaktsii “Proletaria” verified with the minutes

4 SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF THE FACTION’S UNITY JUNE 12 (25)

I am not going to reply to Maximov; everyone is arriving at the conclusion that this is our last joint sitting with him. We should, therefore refrain from exchanging abuse at the last moment. That is undignified. Marat says that he is being invited to kick himself out. When Marat declared that he preferred to work with the anti-otzovists rather than with the otzovists, his declaration was met with cries of “Bravo!” No one accused him of setting up the break-away centre at Capri, his statement on god-building was quite definite. He is wrong in formal terms. For our part we did not take the division beyond the point where the separate centres of like-minded partisans had already taken shape.

First published in 1934 in the book Printed from the Protokoly soveshchania rasshirennoi text of the book redaktsii “Proletaria” verified with the minutes CONFERENCE OF PROLETARY ENLARGED EDITORIAL BOARD 227

5 FIRST SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF BOLSHEVIK TASKS RELATING TO DUMA ACTIVITY JUNE 12 (25) Vishnevsky’s report is the first positive contribution we have heard here. As for the failure to send a delegate to the general Party conference, Vishnevsky seems to be making a mistake. Pole- tayev said that the deputies would arrive if Dan sent a telegram. Dan refused to do so. The conference has suffered greatly because of the absence of the delegate.280 You say that the well-informed persons281 should not be expelled. The way to fight them is through publicity. More information should be given about them. They should be grouped and characterised. The question of the Proletary Editorial Board’s secretary attached to the Duma group. The secretary was not equal to his task and wrote in a highly formal manner; Steklov is not the man for this job; there is need for a man to do the spade- work. The information should be as circumstantial as possible, otherwise all the promotion groups will be quite useless. The Paris promotion group282 is a delicate matter. We shall support Plekhanov’s line; the other Mensheviks take a very nervous attitude to this. A rapprochement with the Mensheviks of the Dan type is hard. How is a group to be formed? The Mensheviks will get a crowd in. Nothing except a fight can be the result. Perhaps, in order to avoid a squabble the group should be set up under the C.O. Nothing can be done in the Duma group without well- informed persons from the Bolsheviks. For this we should legalise two or three men. One suggestion is Vadim, and perhaps Kamenev. Concerning the participation of local organisations in the activity of the Duma group. Broad leaflet agitation should be started. Definite specimen leaflets about Duma activity should be issued. The revolutionary Social-Demo- cratic use of the Duma will be neither revolutionary nor Social-Democratic without the influence of the organisa- 228 V. I. LENIN tions. There is need of leaflets on the subjects of the Duma speeches. This kind of thing will involve the organisations in the work and give them an impetus. Up to now, insufficient use has been made of deputies’ meetings. They wasted most of their time on debates with the otzovists. There is also need for leaflets on the party grouping in the Duma and, finally, leaflets on the work of the Duma in general. It is not only the C.C. representatives, but also the organisations that should direct the Duma group. We must have leaflets on the meaning of this or that speech in the Duma. Take the question of foreign policy. Our deputies were the only ones to speak. This was not properly assessed. There is need for leaflets with extracts from speeches. I see no other way for the organisations’ participation except in the form of leaflets. The disorganisation is desperate, the leaflet activity should be pressed forward vigorously. Criticism in foreign newspapers is late. Parliamentary speeches will always say less than everything. The i’s will be dotted by the leaflets. It is sometimes very hard for the organisations to send their representatives. As for the newspaper, there is only one condition: a majority secured for us, but I do not believe it is possible to realise such a paper.283 First published in 1934 in the book Printed from the Protokoly soveshchania rasshirennoi text of the book redaktsii “Proletaria” verified with the minutes 6 ADDENDUM TO THE RESOLUTION “ON THE ATTITUDE TO DUMA ACTIVITY AMONG THE OTHER BRANCHES OF PARTY WORK”284 Considerably more attention, initiative and effort should be devoted to the use of legal possibilities (a sphere in which some successes have already been scored) than has been done until now.

Written between June 13 and 15 (26 and 28), 1909 First published in 1934 in the book Printed from Protokoly soveshchania rasshirennoi the original redaktsii “Proletaria” CONFERENCE OF PROLETARY ENLARGED EDITORIAL BOARD 229

7 SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF THE PARTY PRESS JUNE 15 (28) It is, of course, impossible to destroy Proletary. There is need for a popular organ, but the question depends on various other combinations, for instance, finance. It is not right to prohibit assistance for the legal press in such resolute terms as Vlasov has done. I think it would be useful to publish a small magazine, about the size of, say Dal,285 which the Menshevik liquidators are publishing. First published in 1934 in the book Printed from the Protokoly soveshchania rasshirennoi text of the book redaktsii “Proletaria” verified with the minutes 8 SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF PUBLISHING PHILOSOPHICAL ARTICLES IN THE CENTRAL ORGAN JUNE 15 (28) Since we cannot foresee how the debate on philosophy will develop, the question should not be posed as Comrade Marat has done. Therefore all restrictions on the C.O. in this respect should be lifted. I welcome Comrade Marat’s statement on the need of philosophical articles in the legal miscellanies. First published in 1934 in the book Printed from the Protokoly soveshchania rasshirennoi text of the book redaktsii “Proletaria” verified with the minutes 9 PROPOSAL ON THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR A NEWSPAPER OF THE DUMA GROUP286 JUNE 16 (29) In view of the importance of Comrade Meshkovsky’s statement, I propose that of the 1,500 rubles earmarked or legal publishing, 1,000 should be used for the Duma newspaper. First published in 1934 in the book Printed from the Protokoly soveshchania rasshirennoi text of the book redaktsii “Proletaria” verified with the minutes 230 V. I. LENIN

10 SPEECHES AND PROPOSALS IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF REORGANISING THE BOLSHEVIK CENTRE JUNE 17 (30)

1 I agree with Meshkovsky. A referendum concerns all Party members, and that is impossible to put through. Conferences are desirable, but they should not be made statutory. I believe that the idea of periodical conferences should alone be adopted.

2 It should be written that the Russian members of the Bolshevik Centre constitute a collegium in general, without limiting their number to three. First published in 1934 in the book Printed from the Protokoly soveshchania rasshirennoi text of the book redaktsii “Proletaria” verified with the minutes

3 In the absence of a Plenary Meeting, the Executive Com- mission may replace the Proletary editors and members of the Economic Commission in the event of their leaving.

4 The Bolshevik Centre Secretariat Abroad, consisting of two persons, shall be appointed by a Plenary Meeting. First published in 1934 in the book Printed from Protokoly soveshchania rasshirennoi the original redaktsii “Proletaria”

PLAN FOR A LECTURE “THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONGRESS IN COPENHAGEN AND ITS IMPORTANCE” 1. International capital, its international organisation, international character of the working-class movement. “Proletarians of all countries, unit” PLAN FOR A LECTURE 231

2. First International 1864-1872. 3. Second International 1889—First Congress in Paris287 1910—Eighth Congress in Copenhagen288 33 nations; almost 1,000 delegates . 4. Importance of international congresses in rallying the working class and determining its line: Amsterdam. 5. The Copenhagen Congress: Czechs and Austrians nationalism and internationalism, bourgeois and proletarian policy . 6. Co- operatives (Weapon in the proletarian struggle: standpoint (A) proletarian and bourgeois (B) importance of co-operatives in implementing socialism: expropriation (C) behaviour of socialists in co-operatives). 7. Support of the revolutionary movement in Persia—protest against the Finnish campaign.

Written before September 13 (26), 1910 First published in 1933 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXV the original 232

QYQQ -QYQT

PLAN FOR A LECTURE IN A COURSE ON “FUNDAMENTALS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY” LECTURE IV

1. The essence of the capitalist mode of production as compared with the other modes of production historically preceding it. 2. Similarity in the existence of class oppression and distinction in the forms and conditions of the class struggle. 3. The worker’s struggle against the capitalist over working hours. Conditions for the sale of the commodity “labour-power”. The production of absolute and relative surplus-value. 4. “Normal” conditions for the consumption of the commodity “labour-power” are determined by the worker’s struggle against the capitalist. 5. The strike struggle, trade unions and factory legislation in the history of the struggle for shorter working hours. 6. Some results of the half-century of modern history (14th-20th centuries) in the struggle for shorter working hours. Kautsky’s “summary”.289 Insignificance of “social progress”.

Written before January 27 (February 9), 1911 Published in Paris in 1911 Printed from the as a duplicated leaflet issued by leaflet text the Organising Commission of the Social Science Courses MEETING OF THE R.S.D.L.P. CENTRAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS 233

MEETING OF THE R.S.D.L.P. CENTRAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS290 MAY ù8 - JUNE 4 (JUNE 10 - 1û), 1911

1 REPORT ON THE STATE OF AFFAIRS IN THE PARTY291

Following the C.C. Plenary Meeting in January 1910292 the Bolsheviks bent every effort to restore the composition of the C.C. and help it to resume its activity. C.C. members Makar and Innokenty contacted local Party organisations and Party members working in the open labour movement, together with them nominated candidates for co-optation to the C.C., etc. But the efforts of the C.C. Bolsheviks ended in the arrest of both. They got no help at all from the Golos people in their work in Russia. The representatives of the Mensheviks, elected at the London Congress, Mikhail, Yuri and Roman, who have now gone over to the independent legalists, have not only refused to work in the C.C., but have announced that they consider its very existence harmful to the labour movement. In 1910, following a break of several months, Comrade Makar, who escaped from exile, and Comrade Vyazemsky once again set up a bureau for convening the C.C.* The Bundist Yudin, a member of the Bureau, took part in their work. Over a period of six months, they once again established contacts with local organisations, nominated candidates for the C.C., dispatched agents, and joined the Duma group in organising the election campaign for the by-elections in Moscow. Of the representatives of the Mensheviks, they succeeded in contacting only Comrade Kostrov, who once or twice came merely to exercise his right to vote in the event it came to a convocation of the C.C. After working for six months, the C.C. Bolsheviks were arrested together with several candidates for co-optation to the C.C., the comrade secretary and a number of other *This provisional bureau was recognised both by non-Russian organisations and by our Party’s C.C. Bureau Abroad and C.O. 234 V. I. LENIN persons variously connected with the Bureau’s activity. In a letter sent from prison after their arrest, the comrades C.C. members stated that the gendarmes had kept them under constant surveillance for a number of months and had been informed of their every step, and that there was no doubt at all about the provocation over the preparations for convening the C.C. in Russia. Following the arrest of two members of the Bureau (Makar and Vyazemsky), the C.C. members still at large—Yudin and Kostrov—displayed no activity at all over a period of two and a half months, even failing to send any letters either to the C.C. Bureau Abroad or to the C.O. As a result of the 18-month effort to restore the C.C. in Russia, the four Bolshevik members (Meshkovsky, Innoken- ty, Makar and Vyazemsky) are either in exile or in prison. The gendarme inquiries and a whole number of arrests have made it quite clear that the authorities are most thoroughly informed about all the London candidates293 and C.C. members and that their every step is being watched. In view of all these circumstances to make a fresh attempt to convene the C.C. in Russia would be to court certain failure without any hope of success. The only possible way out of this situation would be to call a Plenary Meeting abroad. Nine persons with the right to take part in the Plenary Meeting are abroad.294 This will constitute more than one-half of its full membership (15 persons). They juridically can and essentially must declare themselves to be the Plenary Meeting. The proposal to postpone the constitution of the Plenary Meeting until the convocation of the other members would mean many more months of delay. With the exception of Mikhail, Yuri and Roman, who have openly announced their break with the C.C. and their sympathies for liquidating the Party, the Mensheviks could “bring together” Kostrov and Pyotr. The Bolsheviks could bring together Meshkovsky, Innokenty, Rozhkov and Sammer. It is hard to say how many months this would take. In the light of the experience it has had, the real meaning for the Party of this protracted “work of bringing together” formal candidates is nil. It is even worse than nil, for the MEETING OF THE R.S.D.L.P. CENTRAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS 235 game of allocating places in central bodies hides from local organisations and groups the sad reality in respect of which vigorous action must be taken. After eighteen months of unsuccessful attempts to restore the activity of the C.C., to feed the Party with more endless delays would be an affront to the Party. We do not intend to have a hand in any such affront. At present the real position of the Party is such that almost everywhere in the localities there are small Party workers’ groups and cells that meet irregularly. They enjoy great prestige among the workers everywhere. Every- where they are combating liquidator-legalists in the unions, clubs, etc. They are not yet connected with each other. Their supplies of literature are extremely rare. In these groups of workers, there is a rallying together of Bolshe- viks, pro-Party Mensheviks and some of the Vperyod supporters295 who have not been drawn into the separate Vperyod faction set up abroad. The Vperyod group used all the period since the Plenary Meeting to help from abroad in strengthening and separating its faction in organisational terms. Its representatives have withdrawn from the Diskussionny Listok Editorial Board296 and the School Commission under the C.C.297 The Vperyod group has failed to carry out the decisions of the last Plenary Meeting, and has, in fact, done everything to hamper the Social-Democratic general Party work. Prepara- tions for the forthcoming elections have long since been started in the legal and illegal Party literature. Mean- while, the Vperyod group, far from assisting the Party in this extremely important political action, has even failed to state unequivocally whether in general it favours participation in the elections to the Fourth Duma298 or opposes participation in them. Even in their latest statements in the press, the Vperyod group leaders abroad continue to flirt with the otzovists. A far more serious anti-Party and anti-Social-Democratic force is the faction of the independent legalists (Nasha Zarya,299 Dyelo Zhizni,300 and the Golos people who, like Dan, Martov & Co., cover them up). It has been proved beyond doubt that they recognise no Central Committee and publicly ridicule Central Committee decisions. They cannot and 236 V. I. LENIN will not carry out the last Plenary Meeting’s decisions (“Not to minimise the role of an illegal party”, etc.). They cannot help taking the opposite line of action. No Social-Democrat can doubt that the “independent legalists” can be expected to conduct an election campaign for the Fourth Duma on their own, apart from and against the Party. The task of the Social-Democratic Party members is clear: the Party workers’ circles in Russia should be openly and resolutely urged to start preparations for the elections immediately. Only committed Party men, only comrades realising the danger of the liquidationist trend should be nominated as Social-Democratic candidates. Direct action against independent legalists must not be postponed for a single day; the workers must be warned right away of the danger posed to the Social-Democratic Party by the independent legalists at the elections. Such is the task of the day for our Party. Any deviation from such an approach to the question, which has been posed by life itself (and by the independent legalists), all delays, or attempts by the legalists to repeat the game of “promises” and “assurances” are fraught with great danger to the Party. Our practical conclusion: the meeting of the nine must absolutely and immediately issue a manifesto to the Party in which the failure to convene the Central Committee in Russia is truthfully and fully described, and which calls upon local Party circles to display initiative and establish local and regional committees, to set up and support a Central Organising Commission, to set up and support Social-Democratic press organs (where, as in Zvezda,301 which is being published with the participation and support of the Social Democratic Duma group, there should be no place for the liquidators), urging them to conduct a determined and implacable struggle against the independent legalists and to make for closer ties in their work between representatives of the true Party elements, without regard for trend. In the event that not only five of the nine members of the C.C., but a solid majority of the nine agree to regard themselves as a Plenum of the C.C., this meeting of the C.C. must immediately co-opt new members, set up an Organis- MEETING OF THE R.S.D.L.P. CENTRAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS 237 ing Commission for calling a conference and start practical preparations for election to the Fourth Duma. Representa- tives of pro-Party Mensheviks should be seated on the Organising Commission and the C.C. right away. The C.C. meeting must at once start a resolute struggle against the independent legalist group. It stands to reason that this struggle is incompatible with the participation of independent legalists in central Party bodies, which they have sabotaged, obstructed, weakened and kept in a morbid state for eighteen months.

Written between May 19 and 23 (June 1 and 5 ), 1911 First published in 1961 in Printed from a copy Vol. 20 of the Fifth Russian written in F. E. edition of the Collected Works Dzerzhinsky’s hand

2 SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF CONSTITUTING THE MEETING MAY 28 (JUNE 10)

1 302 Considering that the Party has been suffering from the postponement of the Plenum for 18 months, the non-Russian organisations should have long since elected their representatives. The Latvian comrade’s approach was different from that of the Bundist. He said that although he had not been elected, in view of the conditions of the Plenary Meeting’s convocation he deemed it his duty to take part in it, and to submit a subsequent report to the C.C. of the Latvian Territory, with the proviso that the decisions would enter into force in the Latvian Territory only upon their approval by the C.C. of the Latvian Territory.

2 In fact, comrades here are being fooled.303 We know that Makar and Lindov did something, contacted organisations, appointed agents and contacted the candidate. They were arrested. Since then we have had no news from any of those 238 V. I. LENIN who remained. They have even failed to inform either the C.O. or the C.C. Bureau Abroad. No work has been done. It is no longer possible to deceive the Party with a Russia Bureau304 or a Russia C.C. Convening the C.C. in Russia is a phrase that helps Stolypin. Ionov’s statement says that he will send his invitation to the Bund C.C.305 When is he going to do so? How much time has elapsed? Why is there no reply? Ionov says that not having the powers he cannot attend a meeting of the C.C. members. Why then is Lieber here? I propose a resolution on Ionov’s reply, because it makes clear that an intrigue is being carried on.

Let us sum up what has been said about the Bureau. It turns out that the remaining members of the Bureau were meant. About the work it is said that no work has been done. Comrade Adrianov is a prominent Menshevik and the Mensheviks would have been aware of his work if he had done any. Even his closest associates know nothing about it. Any further attempt to play up the existence of a bureau somewhere is to deceive the Party. In view of the arrests, Ber could not contact the Bund C.C. What then is the Party to do? It cannot afford to wait. There must be initiative in this case.

4 Ber is shouting about the law, but at the same time he has been resolutely fighting in the C.C. Bureau Abroad against the law and in favour of the liquidators.306 This kind of behaviour makes me doubt the sincerity of his statements and expect him to make fresh attempts to break up all-Party institutions.

First published in 1961 in Printed from Vol. 20 of the Fifth Russian the minutes edition of the Collected Works MEETING OF THE R.S.D.L.P. CENTRAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS 239

3 SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF CONVENING A C.C. PLENARY MEETING MAY 30 (JUNE 12)

1307 I state that for six months the lower institution (C.C. Bureau Abroad) has been violating decisions and refusing to convene the higher institution. I am forced to state this in order to give a warning against putting any trust in an institution which for six months now has been trying to close the Party’s way to a resumption of its central institution.

2 I point out that as early as the spring of 1910 we had a letter from Inok saying that C.C. members were being shadowed. We fought with every means against the Russian gamble.308 Makar resumed the business in 1910 and the dispatch of money right away revealed the hopelessness of the attempt. It was quite plain at once that to call the C.C. in Russia meant to send people to gaol. From the spring of 1908 to the 1910 Plenary Meeting the C.C. did not meet in Russia a single time. The history of the convocation in Russia shows that the task is unfeasible. Sending the C.C. to Russia was tantamount to sending it to prison.

3309 Over a period of 18 months, four Bolsheviks have been arrested while doing central work. Not a single Menshevik has been arrested because they have been working to set up a Stolypin party. Letters were not written to us and correspondence was suspended for reasons of secrecy. The Mensheviks, far from working to set up the C.C., even refused to attend for co-optation (Mikhail, Roman and Yuri), Pyotr has been nowhere near the Bureau, while Kostrov lived close by. It is an incontrovertible fact that only the Bolsheviks have been working. 240 V. I. LENIN

Concerning Lyubich we have a letter from Inok indicat- ing his consent to work. Concerning Pyotr we merely have the information that he has been nowhere near the Bureau. A C.C. member has the clear duty of going to work on the C.C. Martynov is an émigré=Bogdanov, Nikita. If he is invited, then they and Victor should be invited too. Mikhail, Yuri and Roman have nothing to do with the C.C. These are men who are building a Stolypin labour party and are engaged in activity which was resolutely condemned by the January Plenary Meeting. We have nothing in common with the architects of a Stolypin labour party or with those who are helping them.

First published in 1961 Printed from in Vol. 20 of the Fifth Russian the minutes edition of the Collected Works

4 PROPOSAL FOR RESOLUTION ON CONVENING A PARTY CONFERENCE

The Organising Commission310 has been recruiting for the work of convening a conference representatives of local organisations in Russia and influential comrades engaged in activity among the masses, so that they should, if possible at once, set up a Russian collegium performing all the practical work in convening the conference, under the general control of the Organising Commission—in the sense of fulfilling directives stated in the resolutions and the letter of the Plenary Meeting.

Written on June 1 (14), 1911 First published in 1933 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXV the original

5 STATEMENT 311

In voting for the resolution as a whole312 in order to bring together as closely as possible all the Party elements without exception, we resolutely protest against the permissibility INSERTION FOR KAMENEV’S PAMPHLET TWO PARTIES 241 of inviting to the Organising Commission the Golos and the Vperyod people abroad, i.e., representatives of anti-Party groups which have developed into special factions abroad and which in the 18 months since the Plenary Meeting have proved themselves capable only of acting against the Party, only of slowing down its work, only of helping the independent legalist labour party or the otzovists. N. Lenin Written on June 1 (14), 1911 First published in 1933Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXVthe original

STATEMENT 313 In our capacity as members of the meeting we, the undersigned, having learned of the decision of the Technical Commission314 not to issue any money to the school,315 declare that we consider this decision downright illegal and motion the following proposal for a vote by the members of the meeting: Members of the meeting resolve that the amount required for the school (for travelling or living expenses not later than September 1, 1911) should be issued from cash (or the trustee funds)—in accordance with the decision of the Party’s School Commission. N. Lenin July 30, 1911

First published in 1961Printed from in Vol. 20 of the Fifth Russianthe original edition of the Collected Works

INSERTION FOR L. B. KAMENEV’S PAMPHLET TWO PARTIES* A choice should be made between the party of the revolutionary proletariat and the party of the independent legalists. Every circle or group of the R.S.D.L.P. must tell the workers as much and practise it.

*Lenin’s introduction to L. B. Kamenev’s pamphlet Two Parties. See present edition, Vol. 17, pp. 225-28.—Ed. 242 V. I. LENIN

We know that there are people who, while recognising the need to fight the liquidators, object to a complete break with them and continue (even now!) to speak of “conciliation” or “agreement”. Among these people are not only the “loyal servitors” of Trotsky, whom very few people now take seriously. The advocates of conciliation and agreement are making a big mistake: the 18 months have shown in practice that the legalists do not fulfil any obligations. How can there be an agreement with men who do not carry out their obligations?? Isn’t it ridiculous to speak of an agreement, when the speaker is unable to state either the terms of the agreement or the means to secure fulfilment of any terms whatsoever??

Written after July 20 (August 2), 1911 Published in August 1911 in aPrinted from pamphlet issued by the Rabochayathe original Gazeta Editorial Board in Paris

PLAN FOR A LECTURE “MANIFESTO OF THE LIBERAL LABOUR PARTY”316

1. Why does N. Rozhkov’s article in No. 9-10 of Nasha Zarya deserve such a name and the most thorough analysis? It affords an opportunity of examining the question of the two lines in the labour movement and the “two parties” outside any “conflict” material, outside any “squabble”. 2. The type of “Social-Democrat of freedom days”. Bour- geois democrats in Marxist garb. Rozhkov as a specimen; his article is a wholesale substitution of liberalism for Marxism. 3. The role of the serf-owners in modern Russia from the standpoint of the liberals (Rozhkov) and the Marxists. The “December (1908) resolutions” of the R.S.D.L.P. 4. The attitude of democrats to the (Stolypin) solution of the agrarian problem “through a compromise between various groups of the bourgeoisie”. 5. Is Russia to have a “triumph of highly moderate bourgeois progressism”? OUTLINE OF REPORT ON POLITICAL SITUATION 243

6.A comparison of modern Russia with her Third Duma and France of the 1860s with her Legislative Corps, and Prussia of 1880s. 7.Have the “old slogans” become a “dead letter”? 8.Why is the Society for the Protection of the Interests of the Working Class, which is being set up by Rozhkov, a society for the liberal protection of working-class interests in their liberal interpretation? 9.Ratio: Y. Larin is to the labour congress as N. Rozh- kov is to the legal liquidationist party.

Written before November 14 (27), 1911 Published in November 1911Printed from in an announcement of the lecturethe text of the put out by a Rabochaya Gazeta circleannouncement

PROPOSAL ON RULES FOR THE ORGANISATION ABROAD MOTIONED AT A MEETING OF BOLSHEVIK GROUPS ABROAD317 In electing a Committee of the Organisation Abroad318 to handle the latter’s affairs the meeting hands it the draft Rules together with all the remarks, authorising the Commit- tee to poll the groups and give final approval to the Rules through such a poll.

Written on December 16 (29), 1911 First published in 1933Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXVthe original

OUTLINE OF A REPORT ON THE POLITICAL SITUATION319

Political Situation 1. Crop failure—and the famine. “Food” campaign— Lidvaliad.320 2. Stolypin’s “agrarian reform”: bourgeois wine poured into serf-owning wineskins. They burst. 244 V. I. LENIN

3. December 1908 about the Stolypin reform321 and failure of the liquidators and the Vperyod people to understand. 4. Commissary trials: stealing. 5. Mismanagement and disorder. —Cadet and Octobrist press. Flight from St. Petersburg to Moscow, lorry runs, construction of railways, Russian industry in the foreign market, public education and Kas- so’s “broom”322 — — — sighs, oh’s and ah’s, and regrets all over the place. 6. The bourgeoisie craves for the bourgeois system. It wants to “wash the wineskin without dipping it into the water”. 7. Revolution is the only way. Fear, hatred, mistrust— against the tide. 8. “Against the tide”. For the revolution. The working class and the revolution. For revolution (not “universal suffrage”) is the slogan which sums up the political situation and determines the whole content of Party agitation and propaganda (in particular, before the Fourth Duma). etc. Crop failure Commissary trials Persia Kasso and rout The Jews and the “nationalisation of trade”.

The Working Class and the Revolution

1. The “revival”, of which everyone is talking, is a symptom of the fresh upsurge of the revolution. 2. Attitude to the revolution that was: spite, fear, hatred—cowardice, scepticism, lack of spirit—attitude of the working class (“you’ll get another 1905”). 3. Tasks of working-class activity in the new conditions (α) > consciousness of the masses (δ) (β) > development of capitalism (α) SIXTH (PRAGUE) ALL-RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF R.S.D.L.P. 245

(γ)>hostility of the bourgeoisie (β) (δ)>alliance of enemies (γ). 4.Character of agitation and propaganda. Manifestation Noneedforan illegal party of bourgeois ”””propaganda of rev- counter- olution (not hegemony) revolutionary spirit among etc., etc. liquidationism . Social-Demo- crats.

5.“Bird’s-eye view”=Third Duma, Role of (Cadets)

Written at the end of 1911 First published in 1961Printed from in Vol. 21 of the Fifth Russianthe minutes edition of the Collected Works

THE SIXTH (PRAGUE) ALL-RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.323 JANUARY 5 - 1û (18 - 30), 1911

1 TO THE DRAFT RESOLUTION “ON THE RUSSIAN ORGANISING COMMISSION FOR CONVENING THE CONFERENCE”324

This regardless of gratitude. This concerning the Credentials Committee. Instead of “gratitude” I suggest we insert (solemn) recognition of the tremendous importance of what has been done, and elaborate on the difficult conditions.

Written not later than January 5 (18), 1912 First published in 1941 Printed from in the magazine Proletarskaya the original Revolutsia No. 1 246 V. I. LENIN

2 OUTLINE OF SPEECH ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CONFERENCE 1. Break-up and absence of the C.C. â 2. Initiative of local organisations in restoring the ä Party. Elections 3. Pressing tasks of practical work have ä âto the Fourth made the task of restoring the Party Duma. especially acute. 4. All have been invited and only those who refused to help the Party are absent. 5. All organisations operating in Russia are represented. ——The constitution of the conference as the Party’s supreme body whose duty it is to set up authorised central institutions and help to restore Party organisations and Party work everywhere. 1) National organisations were invited three or four times. —— (1) the fault for the separation from Russian organisations has been stated to fall entirely on the non-Russian organisations; 2) partial support for the downright liquidationist (Bun - dist) aspirations; helpless vacillations on the question of whether the Party is to be or not to be; 3) which would be the greatest abnormality if the Russian organisations carrying the whole burden of the work in the most important centres of the movement rejected the work and the Party’s restoration. 4. (1) none for three years; (2) recognised the need and prepared for two and a half years; (3) everyone without exception was notified and invited and given a chance to attend; (4) twenty Russian organisations have rallied round the R.O.C.325

Written not later than January 5 (18), 1912 First published on January 18, Printed from 1937 in Pravda No. 18 the original SIXTH (PRAGUE) ALL- RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF R.S.D.L.P. 247

3 REPORT ON THE WORK OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST BUREAU JANUARY 7 (20), 1912 The work at the I.S.B. falls into two parts, one routine: correspondence, distribution of members ... etc.; the other— congresses: Copenhagen and Zurich.326 Following the Lon- don Congress one [representative] was [on the I.S.B.] from the Russian Social-Democrats. The Plenary Meeting also elected Plekhanov, but he refused, saying that one man was enough to do the work. At the Copenhagen Congress we drew closer together and spoke in a friendly manner; I was no longer able to talk to the Golos people and looked at Trotsky with disapproval, especially over the letter.327 Towards the end of the sitting, Plekhanov accepted the Plenary Meeting’s proposal. He and I have one vote. Until recently we have had no conflicts of any kind. At Copenhagen I worked on the co-operative committee. Of most interest are the extremely aggravated relations among the German Social-Democrats: unity on the surface and two different trends beneath. On behalf of the German Social-Democrats, one half represents the party and the other, the trade unions. The greater the German delegation numerically, the lower seems the hegemony of the German Social-Democrats to decline. At Stuttgart they covered themselves with disgrace by voting for the colonial resolution.... One of their representatives, for instance, says that it is impossible to expropriate the capitalists. It turns out that in this context their programme says nothing at all about expropriation. What they are actually conducting is not a Social-Democratic line. There should be no illusions about this, for as time goes on the struggle is bound to sharpen and grow; of course, the mass of the proletariat will not vacillate. They staged a walk-out at the Magdeburg Congress, but no Social-Democrat will be intimidated by that kind of thing.328 There is a split among the Czechs.329 We were against the split, feeling that the Social-Democrats should not Succumb to any chauvinist or nationalist agitation. In Austria, there are a great many scandals over the language 248 V. I. LENIN to be used in the paper work, etc. Plekhanov was the rapporteur on this split, and his resolution was adopted by a large majority. There again, Trotsky tried his reconciliation, saying that the fault lay with Adler, the most “peaceable” and opportunist Social-Democrat. The German Social-Democrats are undoubtedly approaching a new epoch—the epoch of the socialist revolution. The economic and military crisis and world complications, all tend to bring out the symptoms of the epoch. There has been preparatory work so far. Now it is the epoch of battles against the bourgeoisie. And that is where the distinction between the reformists and the revolutionary Social-Demo- crats is being realized. A sitting of the I.S.B. was called at Zurich over Morocco. There was also an incident there. Molkenbuhr wrote a letter in his own name suggesting that no sitting should be held. Rosa Luxemburg published the letter, and that sparked things off.330 The revolutionary Social-Democrats won out at the last congress. Bebel said that he would take action against Rosa Luxemburg. There was an attempt on the part of the French to get the strike written into the resolution as a means of struggle against war. All the revolutionary Social-Democrats spoke against, arguing that we should not let the government know in advance which weapon we shall take up, and which is most suitable and where. The proposal was rejected. Bebel raised the question of non-publication of the documents, hinting at Rosa Luxemburg and demanding a resolution. I stood up for Rosa Luxemburg. To Bebel’s great indignation I quoted Quelch. There Bebel acted as a conciliator. The letter published by Rosa Luxemburg has nothing to do with the [other] documents. Action in the party was the most that should be done against her, and that was done; it was unfair to take the whole thing to the I.S.B.... Various trends have grown up within German Social- Democracy and are bursting to get out; inside, the party is seething. Resolute action is imminent there. A conflict between the reformist and the revolutionary Social-Demo- crats is inevitable. First published in 1965 Printed from in Vol. 54 of the Fifth Russian a record of the edition of the Collected Works proceedings in longhand SIXTH (PRAGUE) ALL- RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF R.S.D.L.P. 249

4 SPEECH ON THE ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION ON COMBATING THE FAMINE JANUARY 8 (21) 1912 The Party should intervene actively, and a resolution should be adopted. As we have discovered from our exchange of opinion, the workers are paying a great deal of attention to the famine and are actively intervening and helping the starving. Helping the starving is not philanthropy. It is philanthropy only with the bourgeois approach. But that is not all. The Cadets have really adopted the standpoint of the ministry officials. We should join the committees which are being set up to fight the famine. I mean the non-Party workers’ committees. We should not pre- scribe their establishment but we should take part in them. The money should best be sent to the Social-Democratic group, the workers’ unions, clubs and other societies. We should also publish a leaflet, but preferably addressed to the workers and peasants. We should see to the distribution of the speech by Markov II, who said the starving peasants were idlers. It is a fine speech and makes good reading.

First published in 1965 Printed from in Vol. 54 of the Fifth Russian a record of the edition of the Collected Works proceedings in longhand

5 DRAFT CHANGES IN THE PARTY’S ORGANISATIONAL RULES* Organisational Rules §1—idem. §2—add about permissibility of co-optation as a provisional measure (in accordance with the December 1908 resolution). §3—idem. §4—idem. §5—idem. §6—idem. * See present edition, Vol. 17, p. 482.—Ed. 250 V. I. LENIN

§7—idem. §8—out altogether. More about the C.C. §9—instead of 1,000 electors—put 30 or 50 and (temporarily) abolish proportional representation. Note. In view of the pressing state of affairs, the 1912 Conference was constituted as the Party’s supreme body (see resolution on conference).*

Written not later than January 11 (24), 1912 First published in 1941 Printed from in the magazine Proletarskaya the original Revolutsia No. 1

6 SPEECH ON THE ORGANISATIONAL QUESTION JANUARY 11 (24) 1912 I should like to deal with another aspect of the question. It is about flexibility.... The resolution was correct.331 I should like to call attention to which side is important. Let us take a legal society as an example. I can’t say this about the whole of Russia, but about 5 towns I can say that ... it is possible. And so what does a legal society give us above all? Lectures of a Marxist character: this seems to be permitted. I see from the press that they are permitted in the big towns. It is said that lecturers are hard to come by.... The workers themselves should bring out the lecturers and pay them. Then there are the library and reading room. I don’t know whether they are allowed to take Zvezda. Then, legal societies arrange all kinds of entertainment. That is important from the financial side, and, besides, the entertainment makes it a kind of club. Now if this type of society is not a fiction, but a reality, and there is no question about that, we should ask ourselves [whether] we have worked to extend such societies. [Whether] we have given reports about such societies at factories and plants. Have we tried to organise such societies? Further, how are these societies to be used? We are now almost similar in type to the German organisation in the epoch of the anti-Socialist laws, but for us it is both harder and * This paragraph is crossed out in the MS.—Ed. SIXTH (PRAGUE) ALL- RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF R.S.D.L.P. 251 easier. It is harder because legal possibilities were open to them. The C.C. consisted of members of the parliamentary party group, met legally and invited illegal workers. For our part, we have a great deal of sympathy in the masses and support for Social-Democracy. In every society we should have small Social-Democratic cells closely bound up with the Party, deciding on each matter in the spirit of the Party’s resolutions.... These cells should not be as unwieldy as the districts and subdistricts. St. Petersburg and Riga fit the [legal] society type. In Moscow, little was done in this respect. And so we find these cells allowing a different type of Party structure. In the past, in my time, we had to do everything ourselves. Today, the trade unions and organisations handle some of the work. Whenever possible, the political struggle is frequently also conducted by the legal Duma group, and if we had more legal societies built on these lines, the revolution would be invincible. That is the question of the organisations’ flexibility. It will be the ideal for rebuilding our organisation. These illegal cells surrounded by a network of legal cells will give us a new basis. All contacts should be reduced to a minimum, as though the organisation is and is not there. Let there be no meetings. Party work has assumed a different form. The new form has already wedged into the old. Let it be less formalised but expanding through work in the legal societies. Every step towards culture should be permeated with the Social-Democratic spirit, with Social-Democratic culture.... This will be a resolute fight against the liquidators.... There is a cell, which is connected with the C.O., contacting it once a year and doing a hundred times more than before. We have not done enough in the legal societies. We must wrest them from the hands of the liberals, we must [wrest] the entire legal movement. The legal societies should be spread out and expanded. Concrete attention should be given to how work is being organised in the legal societies. Everywhere the illegal cells should be surrounded by a network of legal cells.

First published in 1965 Printed from in Vol. 54 of the Fifth Russian a record of the edition of the Collected Works proceedings in longhand 252 V. I. LENIN

7 TO THE DRAFT RESOLUTION “ON THE CHARACTER AND ORGANISATIONAL FORMS OF PARTY WORK”* Insert at the beginning (α) confirmation of the December 1908 resolution or confirmation of its correctness on the strength of the three years’ experience; (β) recognition that the work of local Social-Democratic forces is creating a type of party here which is approximating to the German one of 1878-90.332 We should go forward along this road this instead of § 1 . In thesis 5, throw out formalisation and instead of “expansion” say strengthening. §7—reword more cautiously, as in December 1908. §9—set out to the effect that the regular distribution of a regularly and frequently published illegal Social- Democratic newspaper is of especial importance for political agitation, for directing the revolutionary struggle, and for linking up all the illegal organisations and illegal cells in the various societies.

Written on January 11 (24), 1912 First published in 1941 Printed from in the magazine Proletarskaya the original Revolutsia No. 1 8 MATERIAL FOR THE RESOLUTION ON THE “PETITION CAMPAIGN”** Resolution on the Petition Campaign Themes: 1) writers’ intention unrelated to the masses, [not] com[ing] from the masses; 2) indifferent signing without clear [slogans], without agitation in the [masses], without interest [on the part of the masses]; * See present edition, Vol. 17, pp. 479-80.—Ed. ** The MS. is partially damaged, and the words in square brackets have been restored according to the meaning and the text of the adopted resolution.—Ed. SIXTH (PRAGUE) ALL- RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF R.S.D.L.P. 253

3) the text and the character of the petition are unsatisfactory; 4) wresting a partial demand, while the circumstances obtrude generally elementary conditions of freedom [for] the whole people; 5) failure: 1,300 signatures. No support in Kiev, Yeka- terinoslav, the Caucasus, etc.; 6) the interest in proletarian meetings has shown that the “[wa]ys” to the masses should be sought not where the liquidators want to. Sum total: Recognise failure as final. Petition on the concrete conditions [of the epoch]—one of the least [suitable] means of agitation. Call to agitation for freedom [of coalition] in connection with general [political] demands and revolutionary agitation in the masses. Draft resolution To recognise: 1) that the [so]-called “petition campaign” was started by a [group of St. Petersburg writers] of the liquidationist trend, without being a product [of mass struggle], without being connected with active initiative ... by workers’ organisations or forward-looking workers; 2) that the said [campaign in virtue of the character] of the petition, and in virtue of the general political conditions, has [inevitably degenerated into a purely formal] and indifferent signing of [a paper] which is of no interest to the masses, [without] broad participation by the workers themselves in discussing ... the petition either in the press or at meetings; 3) that the said petition, circulated and commented upon by the liquidators, advanced an isolated demand for political freedom for one class, the [most] advanced and most revolutionary class, making the demand [outside the general] elementary conditions of political freedom for [the whole people], thereby distorting the tasks in the struggle of the proletariat—[the leader] ... of the whole people— against tsarism and dooming the “campaign” to [failure]; 4) that the outcome of the [petition campaign] in question has clearly confirmed that [the whole] scheme was 254 V. I. LENIN wrong and isolated from [the workers’ mass]: the petition collected only 1,300 signatures, [while] in all the Party organisations, including those [in the Caucasus], Yekateri- noslav and Kiev, and even ... sympathising with the liquidators, the petition campaign, clearly not supported by the [masses], [failed to win] any support at all, just as the [campaign] was given no support [by our Social-Demo- cratic group in the Duma].

Written not later than January 17 (30), 1912 First published in 1941Printed from in the magazine Proletarskayathe original Revolutsia No. 1

PLAN FOR A LECTURE “REVOLUTIONARY UPSURGE OF THE RUSSIAN PROLETARIAT”333

1. The Lena events334 and May Day in Russia. Mass strikes and their role. 2. Revolutionary upsurge quite natural; its forerunners and prospects. 3. Importance of the mass strike in modern revolutions. Experience of 1905. 4. Liberalism and democracy confronted by another revolution. 5. Why did the Cadets declare war on “revolutionary sentiments” and condemn the idea of “the need for another revolution in Russian? 6. A new situation in the current revolutionary upsurge. Political parties, Third Duma, elections. The peasantry and the new democratic intelligentsia. 7. “Freedom of coalition” and slogans in a popular revolution: struggle for a republic, an 8-hour working day, confiscation of all landed estates.

Published before June 13, 1912 Printed from in an announcement of the lecture the text of the put out by the Paris section of the announcement R.S.D.L.P. Organisation Abroad ROSA LUXEMBURG AND POLISH “PARTEI”VORSTAND 255

ROSA LUXEMBURG AND THE POLISH “PARTEI” VORSTAND IN MARTOV’S WAKE335 Rosa Luxemburg’s statement in Vorwärts (on September 14) in defence of the so-called Polish Vorstand and carrying charges against Comrade Radek has forced me to take up the pen despite my great unwillingness to interfere in this matter. I cannot remain silent when the struggle against the liquidators of the Russian Party is being used to vindi- cate the worst methods of the liquidators. I have personally witnessed Comrade Radek’s vacillation from defence of the extreme Left to defence of the Russian liquidators; I have always fought and will continue to fight politically against all those who defend liquidationism, but that is precisely why I must stand up against the disgusting methods used by the so-called Polish Vorstand in the Radek “affair”.336 What is the principal specific of Martov’s “well-known” (bekannt) pamphlet, of which Rosa Luxemburg makes such opportune mention?337 It is that Martov, the leader of the liquidators, after all the Social-Democrats of Russia, in January 1910, solemnly and unanimously accepted the condemnation of liquidationism and after peace in the Party was proclaimed on the basis of this condemnation338—a year later, when the liquidators destroyed the Party’s C.C. and split away from the Party—Martov put out a pamphlet accusing his opponents of 1,001 dishonest and criminal offences. At the time the Poles called this pamphlet a “stinkbomb”, and even (sogar, and not selbst) Kautsky called it “abscheulich”.* The very same thing has now been done by the so-called Polish Vorstand with Rosa Luxemburg at its head. Comrade Radek was recommended to me personally, in 1909 and 1910, as a fitting collaborator for our Party’s C. O. and was personally introduced to me, with the best of references, at the International Congress at Copen- hagen, by the selfsame members of this very Vorstand. But then, in 1911, Comrade Radek took a political stand against this Vorstand, supporting the Party’s Warsaw

* Disgusting, foul.—Ed. 256 V. I. LENIN

Committee, a number of Party members and two of its prominent leaders (Malecki and Hanecki), who exposed the Vorstand for disorganising activity. Comrade Radek helped to establish the truth, namely, that the Polish Parteivorstand is a Vorstand without a party. In Warsaw, the capital of Poland, this Vorstand no longer represents the Warsaw Committee, but its own fictitious little group. The German comrades will soon learn about all this in greater detail. Members of the Russian Social- Democratic Party are aware that there is already a whole literature about it, and it is futile on Rosa Luxemburg’s part to hush it up (totzuschweigen) before the International! After Radek took his political stand against the so-called Parteivorstand (without a party), this “Partei”vorstand cooked up a “trial” against Radek over a “case”—listen to this!—dating back to 1906! That is the crux of the matter, and that is what our illustre* Rosa has been trying wegzuschwatzen!** Rosa Luxemburg and her “Partei”vorstand are currently conducting an unprecedentedly fierce fight against their own party’s best workers, stooping so low as to throw out suspicions of their connection with the secret police. Rosa Luxemburg and her “Partei”vorstand have lost their head waging such a war against their political opponents. Is it not now clear why, without going into the substance of the “Radek affair”, I consider it to be my duty to declare that the substance of the case is political revenge by Rosa Luxemburg and her “Partei”vorstand? Certain methods were described in Russian literature by Turgenev long ago. One old rascal, he wrote, once gave this wise advice: when doing something base, see that you shout loudest about the baseness of the acts you are yourself committing. When robbing the public till, be sure to shout loudest about the vileness of embezzlement.... When the Polish “Partei”vorstand stooped to a repetition of Martov’s methods against Comrade Radek—the “Partei”- (v)orstand got Rosa Luxemburg to raise the greatest possible noise in Vorwärts about Martov’s baseness!... Es ist eine alte

* Illustrious.—Ed. ** To talk herself out of.—Ed. ROSA LUXEMBURG AND POLISH “PARTEI”VORSTAND 257 Geschichte,* but for us Russian émigrés ist sie leider gar nicht “neu”**.... Rosa Luxemburg has been trying to assure her German readers that Comrade Radek “nie die geringste Rolle gespielt hat”,*** and so on, and so forth. It is my duty to reply to this elenden Altweiberklatsch**** and state the precise facts: in 1909 and 1910, Comrade Radek did a great deal of successful work as a contributor to the Central Organ of the Social-Democratic Party of Russia. I was one of the editors of the Central Organ and I cannot let Rosa Luxemburg’s malicious bit of gossip go unanswered. In order to denigrate Comrade Radek, Rosa Luxemburg praises herself under the name of “polnische Wortfüh- rer”.***** She puts out a hint that Comrade Radek’s “taktischen Ideen”*) are tenuous. Let me say right away that I consider this tenuousness, this readiness to have “peace” with the Russian liquidators, Comrade Radek’s great sin. But I believe it is more excus- able in a collaborator who is not responsible for C.O. and C.C. policy than in C.C. and C.O. members. It is patent “Intrigenführer”,**) like Tyszka, who have always played the prevailing role among the notorious “Polish Wortführern” and it is their tenuousness that has done tremendous damage to the whole party. Let me give two examples to substantiate what I say. The Plenary Meeting of the C.C. of the Russian Social- Democratic Labour Party in January 1910 unanimously condemned liquidationism. The only section of the resolution leaving Tür und Thor***) for opportunism (the so-called §1) as carried on Tyszka’s initiative. What is Rosa Luxem- burg going to say about that? Will she dare stand up for this §1 from the standpoint of the “radikale Richtung”?****)

* It is an old story.—Ed. ** It is unfortunately not “new” at all.—Ed. *** “Never played the slightest role.”—Ed. **** Petty old wives’ tale.—Ed. ***** “Polish representatives”—Ed. *) Tactical ideas.”—Ed. **) “Masters of intrigue.”—Ed. ***) A loophole.—Ed. ****) “Radical trend.”—Ed. 258 V. I. LENIN

When in the spring of 1911 the Bolsheviks withdrew from the so-called C.C. Bureau Abroad in view of the destruction of the C.C. by the liquidators, the Poles remained in that institution for months together with the Bundists and the Latvians,339 of whom even (sogar) Plekhanov wrote: “Diese Parteiinstitution, die zum Werkzeug in den Händen einer Gruppe von Leuten geworden war, die die Partei liquidieren wollten und die daher der Sache des russischen Proletariats grossen Schaden zuzufügen drohte, konnte diesem nur einen Gefallen erweisen: nämlich das Zeitliche segnen” (Note: “Tagebuch eines S.D.” 2 Beilage zu N 15, S. 1, zitiert in der Schrift: “Der Anonymus aus dem Vorwärts und die Sachlage in der Soz. Dem. Arb. P. Russlands”; diese Schrift wurde in die Redaktionen aller s.d. Blätter in Deutschland gesandt).* On the strength of these facts, the reader will judge whether there is a great deal of truth in Rosa Luxemburg’s boastful words to the effect that the Poles “mit starker Faust die liquidatorische Richtung in Russland niederzu- halten geholfen haben”.** In actual fact, by their intrigues the Poles did much more to hinder the struggle against this “Richtung”***. Up to now, eight months after the formal expulsion of a definite group of liquidators from the Party (the magazine Nasha Zarya),340 the notorious “polnische Wortführer” have been unable to give a straightforward answer as to whether or not they want “peace” with this group. It is, of course, not as easy to give a straightforward answer as to plagiarise the anti-liquidators today and the liquidators tomorrow, declar-

* “This party institution, which became a tool in the hands of gentlemen intent on liquidating the party, and which in consequence threatened to inflict great damage on the cause of Russian Social- Democracy, could do the revolutionary proletariat only one good service: suffer a timely demise” (Note: Dnevnik Sotsial-Demokrata, Second Supplement to No. 15, p. 1, quoted in “Anonymous in Vorwärts, and the State of Affairs in the Social-Democratic Labour Party of Russia”; this article was circulated to the editorial boards of all Social-Democratic newspapers in Germany).—Ed. ** “Lent their strong fist to help put down the liquidationist trend in Russia.”—Ed. *** Trend.—Ed. ROSA LUXEMBURG AND POLISH “PARTEI”VORSTAND 259 ing oneself, on the strength of that, to be “superior” to both “factions”! Rosa Luxemburg takes the occasion of the “Radek case” to assure her German readers that nothing “ausser Trüm- mern”* is left of the “russische Partei”.** In response to that I must state the actual facts. It is the Polish “Partei”vorstand that is the “Trümmer”, because it has not belonged to the Party for a whole year. For a whole year, it has not had any organisational ties either with the Party C.C., which was elected by the January 1912 Confer- ence,341 or with the so-called “Organising Committee” of the liquidators. The Party of the Russian Social-Democratic proletariat, which has divested itself of the liquidators and the intri- guers of the Polish “Partei”vorstand, is so far from being Trümmer that it has been developing with especial success since January 1912. Since some—and at times, regrettably, influential—comrades in the German party lend an ear to the frequently biased stories and Klatsch of the Wortfüh- rer des polnischen “Partei”vorstandes, who are outside the Party, I shall confine myself to a brief indication of the facts. Legal Marxist newspapers are the only open measure (Maßstab) of the Social-Democrats’ influence in Russia and their ties with the workers’ masses. Only two “trends”—the Party and the liquidators—are represented in Russia. All the rest are a Schwindel.*** In the first half of 1912, the liquidators put out 21 issues of their paper and the anti-liquidators, 100. In the two months of the second half-year (July and August) the former had 4, and the latter—60. In the eight months (from January to August 1912) the former were able to report direct assistance to them from 16 workers’ groups, and the latter— from 551.**** * Except debris.—Ed. ** Russian Party.—Ed. *** Swindle.—Ed. **** Vgl. die Schrift “Zur gegenwärtigen Sachlage in der Soz. Dem. A. P. Russlands”. Leipzig 1912. Diese Schrift gelangt jetzt in Chem- nitz zur Verteilung an die Delegierte der Partei (cf. the article “On the Present Situation in the Social-Democratic Labour Party of Russia”, Leipzig 1912. This article is now available in Chemnitz for distribution to party delegates.—Ed.). 260 V. I. LENIN

Rosa Luxemburg with her stories about “Trümmer” should try to refute these facts! The stories of the polnische “Partei”vorstand about the Russian Party are even less credible than their stories about Radek. N. Lenin Written before September 4 (17), 1912 First published in German in 1964Printed from in the magazine Internationalthe original Review of Social History, Volume IX. Part 3

REPLY TO LIQUIDATORS’ ARTICLE IN LEIPZIGER VOLKSZEITUNG342

A note on “a conference of organisations of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party” appeared in No. 226 of Volkszeitung* on September 28, but is regrettably based on one-sided and unverified facts. We consider it necessary to point out that the said conference was actually in no sense a conference of Russian Party organisations. Russian workers’ centres were not represented at the conference at all. St. Petersburg was represented by the liquidators from the so-called promotion group343 who do not belong to the Social-Democratic Party and have been fighting it fiercely in their magazine and newspaper.344 Moscow was represented only by a delegate from an insignificant section of the Party organisation, and he had been given an imperative mandate to conduct the political line of the Party Conference held in January 1912. The rest of Russia (Kiev, Yekaterinoslav, Kharkov, the Volga and Ural regions, the Central Industrial Area, the Don district and many others) was not represented at all, apart from Krasnoyarsk and Sevastopol, but it was only from the liquidators’ magazines and the report about the “conference” that the Party learned of there being any sort of organisation in either city. For a long time it has of course been no secret to the

* Leipziger Volkszeitung.—Ed. REPLY TO LIQUIDATORS’ ARTICLE 261

Party that a group of liquidators has been trying to call a conference with the assistance of the Bund, which has essentially nothing to do with actual Russian Social-Demo- cratic activity. (For the information of German readers let us add that when we speak about Russian Party work the Bund is not included because its sphere of activity is confined exclusively to the Jewish proletariat.) However, the real character of this attempt was so clear that Comrade Plekhanov replied to the invitation to attend the “conference” that he would not do so not only because he regarded the “conference” as being one-sided, but also because it was not attended either by the “Party elements” or by the “anti- Party elements”. That is exactly what was said in the report published by the Organising Committee of the liquidators’ conference in September 1912. But these words of the neutral Comrade Plekhanov are not in the German report carried in No. 226 of Volkszeitung on September 28 inst. We put it now to every German comrade whether this report can be considered honest. Even from the groups abroad which gave their formal consent to the convocation of a conference together with the liquidators, the former deputy of the Second Duma, Alexinsky, representing the Vperyod group, left it as a sign of open opposition to the liquidators’ party conference, because he did not regard it as a valid party conference. It is our duty, however briefly, also to point out the following: In the six months (from January 1 to June 30, 1912), the anti-liquidators’ newspapers in St. Petersburg, Zvezda and Pravda, united 550 workers’ groups as against the liquidators’ 16. Upon its appearance, the latter’s new paper, Luch,345 was given a hostile reception by the St. Petersburg workers, who saw it as an attempt to split the Party. The liquidators were roundly defeated in the election of workers’ representatives to the Duma (elections to the workers’ curia of the Duma) on September 16 (29). Despite its use of all the means of advertising, the group which had called this private conference of liquidators fighting against the Party, failed to mislead the Russian organisations. It is now making spasmodic efforts through the same advertising channels to misinform the German comrades, at least. 262 V. I. LENIN

We most resolutely protest against this, and point out that the liquidators’ anonymous information will continue to mislead the German comrades until they demand that the “informers” should make a public stand under their own names and with proof in their hands. Central Committee of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party Written after September 16 (29), 1912 Published on October 9, 1912Printed from in Leipziger Volkszeitung No. 235the Leipziger First published in Russian onVolkszeitung text April 21, 1963 in Pravda No. 111Translated from the German

RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC LABOUR PARTY Proletarians of all countries, unite! TO ALL THE CITIZENS OF RUSSIA346 Comrades workers and all citizens of Russia! A war of four powers against Turkey has started in the Balkans.347 War threatens the whole of Europe. Despite their lying government denials, Russia and Austria are preparing for war. Italy is becoming more brazen in her policy of plundering the Turkish lands. The stock-market panic in Vienna and Berlin, in Paris and London shows that the capitalists of all Europe see no possibility of preserving European peace. All Europe wants to take part in the events in the Balkans! Everyone favours “reforms” and even “freedom for the Slavs”. Actually, Russia wants to snatch a piece of Turkey in Asia and to seize the Bosporus. Austria has designs on Salonika, Italy on Albania, Britain on Arabia, and Germany on Anatolia. The crisis is mounting. Hundreds of thousands and millions of wage slaves of capital and peasants downtrodden by the serf-owners are going to the slaughter for the dynastic interests of a handful of crowned brigands, for the profits of the bourgeoisie in its drive to plunder foreign lands. TO ALL THE CITIZENS OF RUSSIA 263

The Balkan crisis is a link in the chain of events which since the turn of the century has everywhere been leading to sharper class and international contradictions, to wars and revolutions. The Russo-Japanese war, the revolution in Russia, a series of revolutions in Asia, mounting rivalry and hostility between the European states, the threat to peace over Morocco, and Italy’s plunderous campaign against Tripoli—such has been the preparation of the current crisis. Wars and all their calamities are produced by capitalism, which keeps millions of working people in bondage, sharpens the struggle between nations, and turns the slaves of capital into cannon fodder. A world-wide socialist army of the revolutionary proletariat is alone capable of putting an end to this oppression and enslavement of the masses and to these massacres of slaves in the interests of the slave-owners. In Western Europe and America, there is a sharpening struggle by the socialist proletariat against imperialist bourgeois governments, who are increasingly inclined to plunge into desperate escapades as they see the working- class millions inexorably marching to victory. These governments are preparing war but at the same time are afraid of war in the knowledge that world-wide war means world- wide revolution. In Eastern Europe—the Balkans, Austria and Russia— alongside areas of highly developed capitalism, we find the masses oppressed by feudalism, absolutism and thousands of medieval relics. Like tens of millions of peasants in Central Russia, the peasants in Bosnia and Herzegovina, on the Adriatic coast, are still ground down by the landowning serf-masters. The piratical dynasties of the Hapsburgs and the Romanovs support this medieval oppression and try to stoke up hostility between the peoples in an effort to strengthen the power of the monarchy and perpetuate the enslavement of a number of nationalities. In Eastern Eu- rope, the monarchs still share out the peoples between them, exchange and trade in them, putting together different nationalities into patchwork states to promote their own dynastic interests, very much as the landowners under the serf system used to break up and shuffle the families of their subject peasants! 264 V. I. LENIN

A federal Balkan republic is the rallying cry that our brother socialists in the Balkan countries have issued to the masses in their struggle for self-determination and complete freedom of the peoples, to clear the way for a broad class struggle for socialism. It is the rallying cry of true democrats and real friends of the working class and we must take it up with especial vigour in face of the Russian tsarist monarchy, one of the most vicious supporters of reaction throughout the world. The foreign policy of Russian tsarism is an unbroken chain of unprecedented crimes and acts of violence, and the dirtiest and basestFROM intrigues against MARX the freedom of nations, against democracy and against the working class. With the aid of Britain’s “liberal”TO rulers,MAO tsarism is crushing and choking Persia; tsarism has been undermining the republic in China; tsarism is sneaking up to seize the Bosporus and extend “its” own territory at the expense of Turkey in Asia. The tsarist monarchy was the gendarme of Europe in the 19th century, when Russian serf-peasant troops put down the uprising in Hungary. Today, in the 20th century, the tsarist monarchy is the gendarme of both Europe and Asia. Tsar Nicholas the Bloody, who has dispersed the First and Second Dumas,NOT who has FOR drowned Russia in blood, enslaved Poland and Finland, and is in alliance with out- and-out reactionaries conducting a policy of stifling the Jews and all “aliens”,COMMERCIAL the tsar whose loyal friends shot down the workers on the Lena and ruined the peasants to the point of starvation DISTRIBUTIONall over Russia—that tsar pretends to be the champion of Slav independence and freedom! Since 1877, the Russian people have learned a thing or two, and they are now aware that worse than all the Turks are our “internal Turks”—the tsar and his servants. But the landowners and the bourgeoisie, the Nationalists and the Octobrists give their utmost support to this vile and provocative lie about a freedom-loving tsarism. Such papers as Golos Moskvy348 and Novoye Vremya are at the head of a whole army of government newspapers brazenly baiting and badgering Austria, as though Russian tsarism was not a hundred times more sullied in dirt and blood than the Hapsburg monarchy. TO ALL THE CITIZENS OF RUSSIA 265

And it is not only the Right-wing parties, but even the opposition, liberal bourgeoisie that has been strident in its chauvinistic imperialist propaganda, scarcely covered up with diplomatically evasive and hypocritical phrases. Not only the non-party liberal Russkoye Slovo,349 but even Rech, the official organ of the Party of “Constitutional- Democrats” (actually counter-revolutionary liberals), has been zealous in attacking the tsarist Minister Sazonov for his alleged “tractability”, for his “concessions” to Austria and for inadequate “protection” of Russia’s “great power” interests. The Cadets have been blaming the wildest nationalist reactionaries not for their imperialism, but on the contrary for minimising the weight and the importance of the “great” idea of the tsarist conquest of Constantinople!! For the sake of the vital interests of all the working people, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party raises its voice in resolute protest against this base chauvinism and brands it as a betrayal of the cause of freedom. A country with 30 million starving peasants and with the wildest arbitrary rule by the authorities, including the shooting of workers in their hundreds a country where tens of thousands of fighters for freedom are being tormented and tortured through hard labour—what such a country needs above all is liberation from tsarist oppression. The Russian peasant must think about emancipating himself from the landowning serf-masters and from the tsarist monarchy, and not allow himself to be diverted from this vital cause by the false speeches of landowners and merchants about Russia’s “Slavonic tasks”. Imperialist liberalism, desirous of tolerating tsarism, may insist on “peaceful constitutional” action, promising the people both external victories and constitutional reforms under a preserved tsarist monarchy, but the Social Democratic proletariat indignantly rejects this fraud. The only thing that can ensure free development for Russia and the whole of Eastern Europe is the revolutionary overthrow of tsarism. Only the victory of a federal republic in the Balkans, together with the victory of a republic in Russia, can release hundreds of millions of people from the calamities of war and the torments of oppression and exploitation in the so-called “time of peace”. 266 V. I. LENIN

In the first five months of 1912, more than 500,000 workers in Russia rose to political strikes, restoring their strength after the most trying years of the counter-revolution. In some places, sailors and soldiers rose up in revolt against tsarism. Our call is for revolutionary mass struggle, for more steadfast, stable and extensive preparation for resolute joint action by the workers, peasants and the best section of the army! That is the only salvation for Russia, which has been oppressed and ruined by tsarism. The socialists of the Balkan countries have come out with a sharp condemnation of the war. The socialists of Italy and Austria and the whole of Western Europe have given them unanimous support. Let us join in their protest and unfold our agitation against the tsarist monarchy. Down with the tsarist monarchy! Long live the democratic republic of Russia! Long live the federal republic of the Balkans! Down with war! Down with capitalism! Long live socialism, long live international revolutionary Social-Democracy! R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee Written before October 10 (23), 1912 Published in October 1912 Printed from as a separate leaflet the text of the leaflet

ON POLITICAL SPINELESSNESS (LETTER TO THE EDITOR) As a regular reader of Pravda,350 I feel bound to express my deep indignation over the behaviour of the elector P. Sudakov The elections take place on October 5. Sudakov is not on Pravda’s list. None the less, Sudakov is returned by the votes of its supporters—as the results of the elections show. It is also evident that apart from the votes of Pravda’s supporters (27-31 out of 50) Sudakov also receives a dozen or so votes from someone else, possibly vacillating voters. And so Sudakov himself starts vacillating. The day after the election, October 6, Pravda carries his report which says, in black and white, the following: “All those elected, REPORT TO INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST BUREAU 267 with the exception of Comrade Petrov, belong to the supporters of Pravda and Zvezda.” That’s clear, isn’t it? But within 24 hours, Sudakov puts in an appearance in Luch! Sudakov admits that he has been to Pravda’s editorial office but, he says, “only as the editorial office of a Social- Democratic newspaper”!! I wonder if this Sudakov isn’t a babe-in-arms. Who is going to believe him that he knew nothing about the two Social-Democratic papers? That he did not know about the liquidators, when he himself under- stands the liquidators? “If I did say,” Sudakov writes in the liquidationist Luch, “that I read Pravda and side with it” (please note Sudakov declaring that he sides with Pravda!), “it was only in the sense” (sic) “that I do in general” (sic) “side” (is that all?) “with the Social-Democrats.” What is one to make of all this! Here is a man who is aware of the existence of the two papers, admitting that he did say that he “sided with Pravda”, and who the next day takes a “senatorial explanation” to the liquidationist newspaper, merely in the sense that he allegedly sides with the Social-Democrats in general!! We are not aware of a more crying instance of spinelessness and vacillation. There have always been “Tushino turncoats”351—deserters from one trend to another—but turncoats have never had the respect of the workers.

Pravda No. 145, October 17, 1912Printed from Signed: Regular readerthe Pravda text of “Pravda”

REPORT TO THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST BUREAU, “ELECTIONS TO THE FOURTH DUMA”352 The coup of June 3 (16), 1907, opened the epoch of counter- revolution in Russia. Everyone knows about the judicial and administrative lawlessness, the persecutions and tortures of those condemned to penal servitude that crowned this triumph of tsarism. The upper sections of the bourgeoisie, terrified by the revolution, supported the counter-revolutionary gentry. 268 V. I. LENIN

Tsarism was sure that it would find support and assistance among the counter-revolutionary elements of the bourgeoisie and landowners. The electoral law of June 3 (16), 1907, is a specimen of barefaced rigging. Here are some data characterising it: The population is divided into “curias”: landowners, first- and second-category urban dwellers, peasants, Cossacks and workers. Electors, elected separately by curias (sometimes not directly, but through representatives), are grouped by the government into gubernia electoral assemblies, and the latter elect the deputies to the Duma. The law distributes the electors in such a way that in the electoral assemblies of 28 gubernias (out of 50) only the landowners are assured of a majority in advance, and in the rest—the electors of the first urban curia (big capitalists). Here is the overall picture: 200,000 gentry have 2,594 electors in the electoral assemblies of 53 gubernias, that is, 49.4 per cent of the total number of electors; 500,000 or so capitalists of the first urban curia have 788 electors (15 per cent); almost 8 million townsfolk of the second urban curia have 590 electors (11.2 per cent); nearly 70 million peasants and Cossacks have 1,168 electors (22.2 per cent); and nearly 12 million workers—112 electors (2.1 per cent). No wonder this electoral law has produced a “black” counter-revolutionary Duma—a real “Chambre introuvab- le”.353 What is surprising is that not only bourgeois liberals, but even Social-Democrats have managed to get their representatives into such a Duma. In the workers’ curia, all electors are Social-Democrats. The ultra-reactionary gentry, with a majority in the gubernia electoral assemblies, have been forced to let in the Social- Democrats (in six gubernias, the law stipulates the election of one deputy from the workers; in other gubernias, the Social-Democrats obtain mandates through agreements with the liberals). The Third Duma was dominated by the Octobrist Party— a party of the reactionary gentry and big capitalists subservient to tsarism. But even these “slaves” failed to satisfy the Nicholas II camarilla, this black band of brigands organising pogroms and attempts on the life of opposition deputies. REPORT TO INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST BUREAU 269

The government, which rigged the elections to get the Octobrists into the Third Duma, has now falsified the elections to get the more “loyal” parties—the “Nationalists” and “extreme Rightists”—into the Fourth Duma. The pressure has been unprecedented. The priests have been ordered to take massive part in the elections and get the Rightists in; the arrests of the opposition candidates, the fines imposed on the press, the closure of newspapers, the dropping of suspects from the electoral rolls—all that was applied, with such cynicism that even the Rightists and even the gentry were impelled to protest. As a result, we have an even “blacker” and even more Rightist Duma, but it is the Octobrists that today turn out to be the defeated party. The liberal opposition and revolutionary democracy (Social-Democratic workers and peasant bourgeois democrats) have almost managed to retain the status quo. The latest data on 438 (out of 442) deputies up for election to the Fourth Duma warrant the following comparison: Third Duma Fourth Duma Democracy Social-Democrats . . . 13 14 Trudoviks ...... 14 11 25 Liberals Cadets ...... 5261 Progressists . .... 36 33 Poles ...... 18 14 Moslems ...... 9 5 113 Rightists Octobrists ...... 131 79 Nationalists..... 91 74 Extreme Rightists . . 46 140 293 Non-party ...... 27 7 Total . .... 437 438 Let us add a few words to explain the names and groupings of the parties: Social-Democrats: the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Trudoviks: peasant democrats, i.e., revolutionary 270 V. I. LENIN bourgeois democrats, whose programme includes the expropriation of the gentry. Cadets: the Constitutional- Democratic Party, actually a counter-revolutionary liberal bourgeois party. Progressists354: the same liberals, but slightly more moderate. Poles and Moslems—the same thing, but on national lines. Altogether the opposition consists of 25 democrats and 113 liberals, or 138 deputies (142 in the Third Duma). Government parties: the Octobrists speak of the constitution rarely and under their breath; the Nationalists never speak of the constitution. The Rightists openly favour a return to autocracy and oppose the constitution. Not only the Octobrists, but even a section of the Nationalists have been impelled towards the opposition by the election rigging. As for the Social-Democrats, the following have been elected by this time: Six deputies from the workers’ curia are Social-Democrats: Badayev from St. Petersburg; Malinovsky from Moscow; Samoilov from Vladimir; Shagov from Kostroma; Muranov from Kharkov; and Petrovsky from Yekaterinoslav. All six are workers. Then Social-Democrats have also been returned in three gubernias through agreement between democrats (socialists and Trudoviks) and liberals against the Rightists. Returned in this manner were: Khaustov from Ufa; Buryanov from Taurida Gubernia; Tulyakov from the Don Region. Then three Social-Democrats were returned from the Caucasus: Chkheidze, Chkhenkeli and Skobelev, the latter being elected by the Russian population of the Caucasus. Two Social-Democrats were returned from Siberia: Rusa- nov and, from the Amur Region, Ryslev. Let us add, too, that the election of one Social-Democrat from Irkutsk Gubernia (Siberia) was virtually assured (11 electors out of 20 were Social-Democrats). However, the governor has declared the election of six Social-Democrats in the city of Irkutsk invalid. The elections have not yet been held. It is also necessary to add that in Warsaw, as a result of a bloc between the Bund and the P.P.S., Jagiello, a member of the Polish Socialist Party,355 was elected deputy. MORE ABOUT PEASANT DEPUTIES IN FOURTH DUMA 271

All these data are preliminary. The full composition of all the groups of the Fourth Duma, including the Social- Democratic group, will become known after the Duma opens on November 15 (28). Cracow, November 11, 1912 The newspaper Le Peuple No. 325, Printed from November 20, 1912 the text of the Signed: N. Lenin book Correspondance entre Lénine et Camille Huysmans. 1905-1914, Paris Translated from the French

MORE ABOUT THE PEASANT DEPUTIES IN THE FOURTH DUMA Novoye Vremya recently reported the final organisation of a separate peasant group in the Fourth Duma. The report says that it consists of 40 men. The group’s bureau consists of Yevseyev, Karaulov, Ichas, Firsov and Mershchy. “Karaulov (a Cossack),” wrote Novoye Vremya, “is said to be one of the most vigorous men in the new group; he drew public attention by his original definition of party affiliation in the form which members of the Duma are asked to fill in by the magistrate office. In the ‘party affiliation’ column Karaulov wrote: ‘I do not belong to any party or faction. I am what every man who truly loves his country must be: I am a monarchist-democrat.’” Can we accept that such a definition of party affiliation is “original”? Yes and no. Yes, considering that Karaulov has frankly expressed what many are afraid to say. No, because in point of fact Deputy Karaulov’s opinion is notoriously shared by a very considerable number of peasants and Cossacks. Incidentally, Deputy Karaulov believes that “every man who truly loves his country” must be a democrat. Deputy Karaulov is clearly mistaken. Let him look at all the Right- wing half or even the Right-wing two-thirds of the Duma: can he truly say that among all these “Rightists”—from “Nationalists” to Octobrists—there is no one “who truly loves his country”? Karaulov must concede that there probably is. 272 V. I. LENIN

But it is quite obvious that the Rightists, and the National- ists, and the Octobrists (and, honestly speaking, the Cadets as well) are not “democrats”. They are all monarchists, that is beyond question, but they are not democrats. They either do not at all favour a democratic electoral law, democratic laws on the press, on association and assembly, democratic distribution of landed property, or talk their way out of the serious problems of democracy. What then is to be done? Is it not clear that the landowners, for instance, take a different view of “true love for the country” than the peasants, although both may be monarchists? The work of the Fourth Duma will surely make Karaulov and men like him give serious thought to this.

Written on November 27-28 (December 10-11), 1912 First published in 1961Printed from in Vol. 22 of the Fifth Russianthe original edition of the Collected Works

RESOLUTION OF THE CRACOW MEETING OF THE R.S.D.L.P. CENTRAL COMMITTEE WITH PARTY FUNCTIONARIES356 ON THE REORGANISATION AND WORK OF THE PRAVDA EDITORIAL BOARD 1. The Editorial Board lacks consistency of Party principle. The Editorial Board is strongly advised to see to the stricter observance and implementation of all Party decisions. Its proceedings must be conducted on legal lines. The C.C. is taking steps to reorganise the Editorial Board. 2. The Editorial Board has failed to provide the necessary response to Party life among Social-Democratic workers in St. Petersburg. Reports or mention of Party resolutions must be unconditionally legal in form. 3. The Editorial Board must give more attention to explaining the error and harm of liquidationism in general and of the sermons of Luck in particular. RESOLUTION OF CRACOW MEETING OF R.S.D.L.P. C.C. 273

4. The Editorial Board must give more attention to campaigning for subscriptions and collections among the workers. 5. The Bolshevik section of the deputies must take part in the paper’s broad editorial collegium and organise systematic and persistent participation in the literary and economic side of the business. 6. The Editorial Board must be especially circumspect in its attitude to its Vperyod contributors to avoid hampering the rapprochement that has begun and to prevent the adoption of an erroneous principled line. 7. Every effort must be made to reduce publishing costs and to set up a small governing collegium (running the whole business) on which there must be at least one representative of the Six.357 There is need for a similar governing collegium (economic commission) on which one of the Six must be seated, to handle the economic side of the business. 8. Articles which the C.C. considers obligatory for insertion must be carried immediately (under a code name).358 9. While strictly maintaining the newspaper’s legal character, it is necessary to recruit for active participation both in literary work on the newspaper and in its distribution workers’ societies, leagues, committees, groups and individuals in St. Petersburg and in the provinces. 10. Support should be given to the initiative of the group of St. Petersburg Social-Democrats in the publication of a general trade union organ of anti-liquidationist orientation, carefully verifying what is being done on the spot. 11. Measures must be taken to bring the literary and the economic side of the newspaper and the magazine359 closer together. 12. The starting of a daily workers’ newspaper in Moscow as a branch of the St. Petersburg paper must be vigorously pursued. With this end in view, organisational connections should be established between the Moscow group and the three deputies of the Moscow Region.

First published in 1956 Printed from in the magazine Voprosy Istorii a copy written in No. 11 N. K. Krupskaya’s hand 274 V. I. LENIN

LETTER TO THE EXECUTIVE OF THE GERMAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC PARTY 360 Dear Comrades! On the proposal of the Central Committee, the conference of representatives of the C.C. and local workers in Russia operating in various branches of Social-Democratic activity, has discussed your letter of December 28, 1912, stating your desire to “call a conference and direct debates”. While expressing gratitude for your attention to our Party affairs, the conference has unanimously decided to reject your proposal. We Russian revolutionary Social-Democrats have very great respect for the party of the German revolutionary proletariat. We want the most fraternal relations to exist between the Russian and the German Social-Democratic parties. Being unwilling, therefore, to leave any misunderstanding, we shall try to make a frank statement to you, dear comrades, of the motives by which we were guided in rejecting your proposal. Let us start, for instance, with the aim of your projected conference. You believe that it should have the aim “to work out a common party programme and organisational rules,” and invite us to inform you of our draft for the one and the other. But our Party has had a Party programme for a long time. Back in 1903, i.e., ten years ago, our programme was approved by our Party’s Second Congress. Since then hundreds of thousands, and in the revolutionary years, millions of proletarians in Russia have proved their loyalty to this programme by fighting under our Party’s standard. We remain true to this programme today. We believe its revision to be quite superfluous. For your information we wish to tell you that up to now not even the liquidators have demanded any revision of the Party programme—at any rate they have not done so openly. Efforts to reach agreement by different groups and groupings concerning a new programme imply the absence of a party. But the R.S.D.L.P. is there, and the working class LETTER TO THE EXECUTIVE OF GERMAN S. D. PARTY 275 of Russia continues to struggle under its standard. Our Party has faced and partially still faces some very hard times. But it has not ceased to exist for a single minute— contrary to the liquidators’ assertions. Only the latter (i.e., men outside the Party) will find acceptable any negotiations on working out some new Party programme— apparently for some new party. (What has been said applies, with slight modifications, to the working out of a new set of Party rules.) Furthermore, we are divided from the liquidators by profound differences of principle—above all on the question of another revolution in Russia. Our Party (including the pro-Party Mensheviks, with G. V. Plekhanov at their head) takes the stand that the working class of Russia and its Party must work for a new revolution in Russia which alone could bring our country true political freedom. That is precisely what the liquidators deny. All their tactics are based on the assumption that development in Russia will take a more or less peaceful constitutional way. You will easily understand, dear comrades, that from these cardinal differences inevitably flows a series of contradictions on all questions of Party work. The liquidators repudiate our present R.S.D.L.P., which can now exist only illegally (although it is capable of conducting and does conduct legal Social-Democratic work in many branches). The liquidators have been trying to wreck our present organisation in the hope of establishing a legal labour party in present-day Russia. (Let us note here that even the liberal Cadets have been unable to secure legal status for their party.) Hence the split, which is entirely and exclusively the work of the liquidators. Very naturally these disputes, these cardinal differences can be resolved only by the conscious Russian workers themselves, only by our own Russian Social-Democratic organisations and no one else. In fact, the Russian workers have already taken a long step in that direction. The recent election to the Fourth Duma has shown that the Russian proletariat is overwhelmingly behind the standpoint taken by our old Party with its revolutionary programme and tactics. 276 V. I. LENIN

All six deputies elected under the law from the workers’ curia are Bolsheviks. These six deputies represent nine-tenths of working-class Russia and they have openly declared themselves to be opposed to the liquidators. Russia’s first working-class Social-Democratic daily (the St. Petersburg Pravda) was founded and is kept going by the workers themselves, on the pennies of the workers, namely, workers belonging to the same (Bolshevik) trend. Consequently, the unity of the vast majority of workers is being created in action, at the grass roots, in the depths of the working mass. That is the only unity that is vital, and it alone will lead to the complete cohesion of the workers’ forces. We shall not conceal from you, comrades, that in the given circumstances we regard mediation by the German Parteivorstand* as being altogether unacceptable. Either for lack of information or for some other reason, the Vorstand has not displayed impartiality in respect of the liquidators and us. Let us recall at least these two facts. 1) The Central Organ of the fraternal German Party (Vorwärts) 361 gets aside whole columns for gross attacks by the liquidators on our January 1912 Party Conference, whereas we are being denied the opportunity of inserting even a purely factual refutation, which is a violation of the most elementary duties in respect of us. 2) During the election campaign, the Vorstand, despite our protests, gave cash assistance to the liquidators, but denied it to the Central Committee. The Vorstand gave a subsidy to the Bund, to the Caucasian Regional Commit- tee362 and the Latvians, i.e., the liquidator O.C.,363 because everyone knows that it is these three organisations that mainly constitute the liquidator O.C. And the liquidators used the German workers’ money to start their publication of a Konkurrenzorgan** Luch in St. Petersburg, whose first issue appeared on the very day of the election and helped to aggravate the split. To give cash assistance to one side against the other during a split is a step absolutely unheard of throughout the Inter- * Party Executive.—Ed. ** Rival organ.—Ed. LETTER TO THE EXECUTIVE OF GERMAN S. D. PARTY 277 national. Having taken such a step, the Vorstand issued a challenge to the supporters of the January Conference and showed that it was unable to remain impartial. It is with deep regret that we must frankly tell you, comrades, that the German comrades’ supply of information concerning Russian affairs is thoroughly defective. This also explains your various proposals, such as a conference of 12 “trends” (small semi-student groups abroad), ignoring the organisations in Russia, or the plan to call together five organisations, etc. This also explains the barefaced attempts on the part of the liquidators simply to deceive you: for example, their attempt to obtain money from you on the strength of the allegation that in the summer of 1912 the Bolsheviks of Kharkov and Moscow united with the liquidators. Actually, however, it is in Kharkov and Moscow that Bolsheviks, implacable opponents of liquidationism (deputies Muranov and Malinovsky), were elected, and they were elected in the struggle with the latter. This also explains why during the elections you gave cash aid to the groups (the Bund, P.P.S., P.S.D.364) which clashed sharpest at the election and which produced from their midst Jagiello, the only deputy not to be accepted as a full- fledged member of the Social-Democratic group, and who was admitted by the slimmest majority of 7 votes to 6. It is high time, comrades, to put an end to all this. Instead of listening to incompetent informants, you must open the pages of your organs for an objective explanation of the state of affairs in the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party and for its illumination in the light of principle, namely, for articles signed by responsible spokesmen of the several Party groups. If you want to know about our affairs, you must draw your information about them from documents and literature, as you do, for instance, in following the struggle of various trends in Italy, Britain, etc. Otherwise, you will unwittingly take steps which may frequently be seen by Russian workers as a quite undeserved affront. Written on March 2 (15), 1913 First published in 1960 Printed from in the magazine Kommunist No. 6 a typewritten copy Translated from the German 278 V. I. LENIN

PRAVDA’S ANNIVERSARY

(WORKERS’ SUPPORT FOR THE WORKING- CLASS NEWSPAPER)

A year has passed since the appearance of Pravda’s first issue. It originated as a workers’ newspaper, created by the celebrated upswing of the working-class movement in Russia in April and May 1912. Pravda has withstood incredible hardships and harassments and has consolidated its positions (insofar as a workers’ newspaper can be “consolidated” in modern Russia) through the support of the working class. Pravda has been more than a workers’ newspaper in name: any newspaper can adopt a name. Pravda has been a workers’ newspaper in fact, in its orientation, in its range of readers from the working mass, and in its content in general, notably the mass of; reports from the workers (1,783 workers’ reports in the first 99 issues; a total of almost 5,000), and, finally, in the support “Pravda” has been given by workers in general and by workers’ groups in particular. Earlier on we pointed out in Pravda (see Nos. 80 and 103 for 1912)* the exceptional importance of the data on support for Pravda through cash contributions by workers’ groups. Their importance goes well beyond the framework of financial assistance, although workers’ financial assistance is extremely important and necessary to improve the newspaper at all times. But contributions from workers’ groups are equally, if not more, important in their moral, educational and organisational significance for all class-conscious workers and for the working class of Russia as a whole. By developing the habit of giving regular support for their own working-class newspaper not only through subscriptions and distribution but also through regular contributions, the workers are rallied even closer around a newspaper of their own trend, the workers are organised into something ideologically coherent, the workers verify the progress

* See present edition, Vol. 18, pp. 187-202 and 299-301.—Ed. PRAVDA’S ANNIVERSARY 279 of their awakening as they read reports about the contributions at a neighbouring factory or one they know of. It is, therefore, impossible to over-emphasise the need to extend and develop in every possible way the custom of regular (it is better to have them small but regular) contributions and collections by groups of workers for the workers’ newspaper. The published reports showed that before Pravda came out over 4,000 rubles had been collected and sent in through the newspaper Zvezda by 500 workers’ groups. From the day of our paper’s first issue up to April 10, contributions totalling 3,932 rubles 42 kopeks were received, only according to reports published in Pravda. Of them, 79.9 per cent came from proletarians of various categories, 20 per cent from various groups of intellectuals, and 0.1 per cent from the peasants. By districts the total is distributed as follows: St. Petersburg—66.3 per cent (2,605 rubles 81 kopeks), of which only 10 per cent falls to the intelligentsia; Moscow, Vladimir and Kostroma—4.6 per cent, of which contributions from the intelligentsia occur only in Moscow District (Let us explain at this point that apart from other reasons, these three districts showed small participation in collections for Pravda because they also made collections for the Moscow paper.365 The money sent only through our newspaper comes to more than 2,000 rubles, of which 70 per cent falls to these three districts and 25 per cent to St. Petersburg District. Once again the St. Petersburg workers showed their political maturity: they also took an active part in setting up the Moscow newspaper); the Urals, Siberia, the Baltic Area and Poland—10.3 per cent; Kharkov and Yekaterinoslav districts—4.4 per cent; elsewhere (Finland, Western Europe, etc.)—14.5 per cent. These figures are sufficiently eloquent evidence of who is the owner of the newspaper, who has kept Pravda going and how intimately it is connected with the workers’ masses. In this context, Pravda’s successes in the first year were very great. To avoid tiring our readers with a lot of figures, we shall not give the monthly but the quarterly (that is, three-month) figures for workers’ group collections for Pravda. 280 V. I. LENIN

Number of workers’ group Years collections Pravda Moscow workers newspapers 1912, first quarter...... 108 — ” second quarter ...... 396 — ” third quarter ...... 81 — ” fourth quarter ...... 35 5 1913, first quarter...... 309 129 1913, first 10 days of April ... 93 43

Total 1,022 177

And so we find that in its first year, Pravda met with support from more than 1,000 groups of workers and laid the foundation for the workers’ paper of Russia’s main industrial area, namely, the Moscow Central Area. It goes without saying that financial support for Pravda from a thousand workers’ groups implies all kinds of support from a much greater number of workers’ groups; it means that tens of thousands of workers have rallied and united round Pravda. There is no doubt at all that the number of groups making cash contributions is only a small fraction of the groups of Pravda readers and friends, who helped it by their letters and reports, who helped to circulate the paper, to introduce it among new workers, new sections of the working people, etc. The working class has advanced a whole vanguard of “front-rankers” who have given a start in the capital to their own, Marxist workers’ newspaper which is hostile to liberal vacillation, and have inaugurated a second workers’ newspaper in the heart of industrial Russia. What the advanced, class-conscious workers have done for Pravda and for the Moscow workers’ newspaper enables us to pass unerring judgement on the sum total of the great work done by the workers for the enlightenment and the organisation of their class. For, after all, Pravda and the Moscow newspaper are only a part, even if an important one, of this great cause. Encouraged by the success of the first year of the workers’ newspaper, the advanced workers will join forces in untiring, THESES FOR LECTURE ON NATIONAL QUESTION 281 persistent effort to continue the great cause of enlightening and rallying ever broader masses of the proletariat round the ideas of Marxism!

Pravda No. 92 Printed from April 23, 1913 the Pravda text

THE STRUGGLE OF PARTIES IN CHINA

The Chinese people have succeeded in overthrowing the old medieval system and the government supporting it. A republic has been established in China, and the first parliament of that great Asian country, which had long gladdened the hearts of the reactionaries of all nationalities by its immobility and stagnation—the first Chinese Parliament has been elected, convened and has been sitting for several weeks. In the Lower of the two chambers of the Chinese Parlia- ment, a small majority belongs to the supporters of Sun Yat-sen, the Kuomintang Party, the “Nationalists”—to express this party’s essence in the context of Russian conditions, it should be called a radical-Narodnik republican party, a party of democracy. In the Upper Chamber it has a more considerable majority. This party is opposed by smaller moderate or conservative parties with all sorts of names like “Radicals”, and so on. Actually, all these parties are parties of reactionaries, namely, bureaucrats, landowners and reactionary bourgeoisie. They all gravitate to the Chinese Cadet Yüan Shih-k’ai, the provisional President of the Republic, who has been acting more and more like a dictator. As a Cadet he has been running true to form: yesterday he was a monarchist; now that revolutionary democracy has won out, he is a republican; tomorrow he intends to be the head of state, again a monarchist state, that is, to betray the Republic. Sun Yat-sen’s party is based on the south of China, which is the most advanced, the most developed industrially and commercially, and where the influence of Europe has been greatest. Yüan Shih-k’ai’s parties are based on the backward north of China. 282 V. I. LENIN

The early clashes have so far ended in a victory for Yüan Shih-k’ai: he has united all the “moderate” (i.e., reactionary) parties, split off a section of the “Nationalists”, got his man to fill the post of President of the Lower Chamber of Parliament, and contrary to the will of Parliament, secured a loan from “Europe”, i.e., Europe’s swindling billionaires. The terms of the loan are hard, downright usurious, with the salt gabelle as security. The loan will put China in pawn to the most reactionary and plunderous European bourgeoisie, which is prepared to stamp out the freedom of any nation once profits are involved. The European capitalists will reap tremendous profits on this loan of almost 250 million rubles. This turns out to be an alliance between reactionary fear of the European proletariat on the part of the European bourgeoisie and the reactionary classes and sections of China. For Sun Yat-sen’s party the struggle against this alliance is a very hard one. What is this party’s weakness? It lies in the fact that it has not yet been able sufficiently to involve broad masses of the Chinese people in the revolution. The proletariat in China is still very weak—there is therefore no leading class capable of waging a resolute and conscious struggle to carry the democratic revolution to its end. The peasantry, lacking a leader in the person of the proletariat, is terribly downtrodden, passive, ignorant and indifferent to politics. Despite the revolutionary overthrow of the old and thoroughly corrupt monarchy, despite the victory of the republic, China has no universal suffrage! The elections to Parliament had a qualification: only those who had property valued at about 500 rubles were entitled to vote! This also shows how little of the really broad popular mass has yet been drawn into active support of the Chinese Republic. But without such massive support, without an organised and steadfast leading class, the Republic cannot be stable. Still, despite its leader Sun Yat-sen’s major shortcomings (pensiveness and indecision, which are due to his lack of proletarian support), revolutionary democracy in China has done a great deal to awaken the people and to win freedom and consistently democratic institutions. By CONCERNING THE EDITORIAL IN LUCH No. 189 283 drawing ever broader masses of the Chinese peasantry into the movement and into politics, Sun Yat-sen’s party is becoming (to the extent to which this process is taking place) a great factor of progress in Asia and of mankind’s progress. Whatever defeats it may suffer from political rogues, adventurers and dictators, who rely on the country’s reactionary forces, this party’s efforts will not have been in vain.

Written on April 28 (May 11), 1913 Published on May 3, 1913 Printed from in Pravda No. 100 the Pravda text

CONCERNING THE EDITORIAL IN THE NEWSPAPER LUCH No. 189 ...* The phrase about a struggle waged by “every available means” does not commit anyone to anything. That is pretty clear. On the contrary, the phrase seems to have been deliberately chosen to justify the evasiveness of the liberals. What are “available” means? Is the leader writer in Luch so childishly naive, is he such a political simpleton that he is not aware that villainous means are “available” to Russian liberalism?? He is aware, but he says nothing, thereby putting a nice make-up on liberalism. The liberal millionaire, the industrialist Konovalov, who got into the Duma through a gross fraud on democracy (a fine villainous means!), has obtained permission to set up a Russkaya Molva society, with a capital of half a million rubles, with the aim of coupling the Cadets with the Octo- brists in the “Progressist” newspaper Russkaya Molva.366 That is a fact, and Luch is aware of it. But together with these Konovalovs and their hack writers Luch signs a resolution on a “struggle by every available means”. I put this to any worker and any thinking peasant: Isn’t it clear that this resolution cheats the people by deliberately using vague words about “availability”, while the Konovalovs are notoriously known to regard as “available” only those means which cannot seriously inconvenience Messrs. Purishkevich & Co.?

* The beginning of the article has not been discovered.—Ed. 284 V. I. LENIN

That much is clear. All the activity of Messrs. Konova- lovs—and, of course, not the Konovalovs alone, but all the liberals—has provided ample proof that the only means they regard as available are those which do not undermine the foundations of the welfare and the foundations of the privileges of Messrs. Purishkevich & Co. There was need to attend the conference to expose for the thousandth time (we shall never tire of doing this) the fraud and to explain to the naive, or ignorant, or slow-witted democrats the “gist” (or, if you want the straight truth, the dirt and the lie) of the word “availability”. This is the basest, the most loathsome, the most corrupt word in the Russian political vocabulary. From the standpoint of grammar it is ridiculous to say: “I recognise only available means”, for who does not know that the unavailable is not available? But the whole point is that the question is not a grammatical, but a political one. The workers do not regard as available the same things as Konovalov, Milyukov & Co. do. Let me take a negative example. The workers consider unavailable “means” like declaring Rodzyanko’s speech “constitutional” today, and tomorrow railing about the infamy of the Octobrists (who have remained true to themselves and to the Purishkeviches from October 17 or even earlier). The workers, a fact I am quite sure of, consider that means and that method “unavailable” villainy. The Kono- vaIovs and the Milyukovs consider it “available” “constitutional tactics”. Let me now take a positive example.... On second thoughts ... Article 129.... Now, gentlemen, after all you must allow me not to take any positive example in this article, in this newspaper or in this magazine! On the other hand, if I had been at the conference, and if the Konovalovs and the Milyukovs at the conference had promised not to inform on me, I would have cited a positive historical and statistical example that would be fine, excellent, vivid and most convincing!... Upon my word, it is a temptation to describe what is considered available in the sphere of action in general and in the sphere of the purse, in particular, by the workers on the one hand, and by the Konovalovs and the Milyukovs on the other.... But I shall refrain.... LANDOWNERS ON MIGRATION OF AGRICULTURAL LABOUR 285

One should have attended the conference. It could have offered more freedom of speech than “certain other places”. There the democrats should have been invited to speak out on the harm of reformism—this would have been opportune from the standpoint of the question that has been raised. There would have been two resolutions: the democratic and the liberal, one “unavailable” to the liberals (but available to the workers and the class-conscious petty bourgeois, or at least to a section of them) and the other “available” to the Konovalovs. The public would have read both resolutions or would have heard about both of them and would have given them thought. It would have thoroughly scrutinised them. It would have used its brains. People would have started to make comparisons. And surely within a short while, the democracy which believes liberal villainy “unavailable” and regards something quite different as available would have started to split away from the section of democracy which is captivated by liberal catchwords and empty phrases. That, too, would have been “joint action”—but not in the spirit of common talk with the liberals concerning the limits of what is “available” to liberalism. Yes, indeed, the newspaper Luch is being run by loathsome liberals, but if it carries a few more useful leaders like the one in No. 189, the workers will finally find out these “evil pastors”. Carry on, gentlemen, and Godspeed!

Written not earlier than May 10 (23), 1913 Signed: Postoronny First published in 1961 Printed from in Vol. 23 of the Fifth Russian the original edition of the Collected Works

LANDOWNERS ON THE MIGRATION OF AGRICULTURAL LABOUR Novoye Vremya, a newspaper of the Black-Hundred landowners, reports some interesting discussions among landowners in Poland and in the frontier areas of Russia in general over the migration of agricultural workers to Germa- ny and other European countries in search of employment. 286 V. I. LENIN

This migration has been rapidly growing. In 1901, some 218,000 persons a year were estimated to have migrated. In 1911, the figure was set at 740,000, more than three times the 1901 figure. In 1912, as many as 800,000 must have left. Let us note that apart from Polish peasants and workers, Russian workers from the centre of Russia have been also leaving for Germany. “Now one very often meets men from Tula, Orel and Ryazan on the border and beyond.” The issue of free ten-month foreign passports for workers going to do agricultural work has intensified this movement. What is the cause? It is that the Russian peasants are being increasingly ruined and it is ever harder to earn a living in Russia, because of the general stagnation of economic life, which is depressed by the serf-owners and lawlessness. Wages in Russia are being kept down at the low serf level. In Russia, the annual agricultural wage averages 62 rubles; add to this 46 rubles’ worth of food a year and you get wages totalling 108 rubles a year. In Germany, however, wages average 180 rubles a year, i.e., just under twice as much!! (In Britain, let us note in parenthesis, agricultural labourer’s wages come to 300 rubles a year, and in America, to 500 rubles.) It is natural, therefore, that hundreds of thousands of workers are fleeing from lawless, starving and impoverished Russia to find employment in Germany, and even beyond it—in Denmark, Switzerland and France. There the workers find out about a higher level of culture, much better cultivation of the soil, incomparably higher crop yields and, what is most important, political freedom, freedom for the labour press and labour organisations. And so, we find the landowning gentlemen debating between themselves: some say that the landowner will benefit from this massive training of our workers in better methods of agriculture. Others wax indignant over the fact that the migration of workers tends to raise wages in the places which they leave. In Russia, generally speaking—and in Russian legislation in particular—the opinion of the latter prevails, and they would like to see the peasants “settled” (i.e., tied to the land), submissive (without any prospect of moving), down- WORKING-CLASS PARTY AND LIBERAL RIDERS 287 trodden and barbaric (to prevent them from seeing how to improve their living conditions and how much better off workers in other countries are). Fortunately, these landowning serf-masters, however hard they may try to break and distort Russian life, no longer have the power to stem the tide of world-wide capitalism, which is uprooting the Russian muzhik as well from his godforsaken hole.

Written on May 10 (23), 1913 Published on May 18, 1913 Printed from in Pravda No. 113 the Pravda text Signed: D.

WORKING-CLASS PARTY AND LIBERAL RIDERS (ON POTRESOV) ...* Mr. Potresov quotes (rather distorts) G. V. Plekha- nov’s article which appeared in August of 1905. At the time, there was a complete and formal split between the Bolsheviks, who united at the Third Congress of the Social- Democratic Party (London, May 1905), and the Mensheviks, (a “conference” at Geneva at the same time).367 The Bolshe- viks and the Mensheviks had their own separate press organs both in 1905 and in the spring of 1906. These are all generally known historical facts, and the rider, Mr. Potresov, speculates on their being forgotten. He has to keep silent about them because they expose the rider’s impudence! Neither of the then existing two Social-Democratic parties (and at the time Plekhanov was out of touch with both of them) had any party decision concerning the non-Party significance of (G. V. Plekhanov’s article, or its liquidationism, its destruction or denial of the Party! That tells the whole story, Mr. Dodging and Hiding Liberal Rider. Liquidationism is a trend condemned by formal Party decisions in December 1908 and again in January 1910 (unanimously by all trends).

* The first page of the MS. has not been found.—Ed. 288 V. I. LENIN

No conference (or any other institution) of the Party ever “read” any liquidationism into Plekhanov’s article. That tells the whole story. Mr. A. N. Potresov clutches at an old article and presents a sheaf of quotations in order to hush up the fact that the whole Party condemned him, Potre- sov, his liquidationist trend. Riders from among the liberal intelligentsia, like Mr. Potresov, are full of a grand, aristocratic contempt for working-class party decisions. These riders ignore party decisions! And the working-class party ignores the liberal Luch and the liberal Mr. Potresov, who “reads” liquidationism into Plekhanov’s old articles, as Mr. V. Chernov used to “read” Narodism into Liebknecht. Mr. Potresov is pathetic and ridiculous in his vain efforts to talk his way out of the fact that liquidationism has been condemned by the Party. It is only idle talk on the part of Mr. Potresov and Luch about taking Plekhanov to court, it is only an effort to fool the reader. They are well aware that everyone will blame them and will laugh at their vain efforts to accuse Plekhanov.

Written on May 27 (June 9), 1913 First published in full in 1961 Printed from in Vol. 23 of the Fifth Russian the original edition of the Collected Works

CAPITALISTS AND ARMAMENTS

The British labour press is continuing its interesting and instructive campaign of exposure revealing how the syndicates of internationally associated capitalists are pushing the nations into war. Take Nobel’s dynamite trust (or syndicate). Its capital comes to the tidy sum of 30 million rubles. Last year, it had a net profit of 3.3 million rubles. Eleven per cent in net profit, not bad, eh? In their annual report, the noble dealers in destructive materials modestly explain their success in this short phrase: “This year there was a high demand for military supplies.” CHEAP MEAT FOR THE “PEOPLE” 289

Is it surprising? The capitalist press and the political leaders serving the capitalists have been shouting about war, and clamouring for more armaments—that is so pro- fitable for the industrialists manufacturing military supplies! But who are they, these industrialists? They are the associated capitalists of all nations, the brothers of ministers, members of parliament and so on! Among the shareholders of the “dynamite” trust (which is a shareholder, if not an owner, of four dynamite plants in Germany) we come across the following names: German army: General von Mühlburg, Major Baron von Fritsch, etc.; British army: General J. Donald, Colonel Noel Findlay, etc.; French army: Colonel François Laffargue; Lord Glenconner, brother of Mrs. Asquith, the British Prime Minister’s wife, Sir North, a minister, Harold Tennant, M. P., Deutsche Bank, Hannover Bank, etc. The leaders of the national parties in various parliaments who shout about the “might of the state” and about “patriotism” (vide the motion formulas of the Cadets, Progres- sists and Octobrists in the Fourth Duma!368) realise this patriotism by arming France against Germany, Germany against Britain, etc. They are all such ardent patriots. They are all so concerned, oh, so concerned about the “might of the state”—their own, of course—against the enemy. And so they sit alongside these “enemies” on the boards and at the meetings of shareholders of the dynamite and other trusts (syndicates), raking in millions of rubles in net profits and pushing—each one his “own” nation—into war against other nations.

Pravda No. 133, June 12, 1913 Printed from the Pravda text

CHEAP MEAT FOR THE “PEOPLE” What a sensation! A most vital need of the workers is being satisfied! Cheap meat for the people—where? what? how? Russkoye Slovo reports that the city slaughter-house in Moscow has opened a “Freibank”, i.e., a shop for the sale 290 V. I. LENIN of cheap meat which has been rendered harmless and certified as relatively fit for use. Cheap meat is a good thing. But what is the meaning of “rendered harmless”, “relatively fit for use” (consequently, there would be equal reason to say “relatively unfit for use”!)? Here is what it means: When animals are put up for sale, they are examined by veterinary inspectors. Sick ones are rejected. No permission is given to slaughter them, because their use for food threatens to infect humans with various diseases. Most rejected animals are tubercular and measly (worm-infected). Of the total of about 450,000 head of cattle going through the Moscow slaughter-house almost 30,000 are rejected as suspect. And so this suspect measly and tubercular cattle is rendered harmless by boiling in a special chamber under the supervision of a veterinary surgeon for about three hours. This boiling kills off the worms and the tubercular bacilli. Well, apparently all, or almost all, die off or nearly die off! This yields cheap boiled meat that has been rendered harmless. The people say, according to a comment in Russkoye Slovo, that “this meat won’t kill you, but it may give you TB or stomach trouble, because, after all, the brutes were ailing.” The demand for this meat is heavy. Workers from the city itself go there and queue up for a long time. The morning queues consist mostly of women, housewives; the day queues, of workers, mainly builders. The boiled meat that has been rendered harmless and that won’t kill you but will give you stomach trouble is just right for the people. The people cannot afford real meat. It is said that the more painstaking the veterinary supervision, the more meat is rejected. “So”, Russkoye Slovo concludes, “the population have a twofold interest in thorough supervision: the middle classes want sound meat delivered from the slaughter-house; the poor, more cattle rejected and the Freibank kept well supplied with meat.” We certainly live in very civilised and philanthropic times: we have learned to make the population take a “twofold interest”. And the “freedom” for cheap meat DRAFT AGREEMENT OF R.S.D.L.P. C.C. AND PRIBOI GROUP 291 is remarkable: after all, “Freibank” in German means “free shop”. Civilisation, freedom, cheap products, revival of trade— everything is for the people! Whenever you see an advertise- ment: “People’s Quarters Society”—you can be sure that the cellar or garret will be cheap and under medical supervision: it won’t kill you of course, but you will get TB. Whenever you see a signboard: “People’s Dining-Hall”— don’t hesitate to go in. You will be served cheap boiled meat which has gone through the slaughter-house under supervision, and which has not gone through the slaughter- house without supervision. Whenever you see a signboard: “People’s Library”— you can afford to exult. There you will find cheap or even free pamphlets issued by the Union of the Russian People or the All-Russia Nationalist Club, under the medical supervision of the spiritual censorship. It is being said that a “Freibank” is soon to be opened for the sale of “people’s bread”—made of grass, which is boiled, rendered harmless and baked under veterinary, sorry, I mean medical supervision. Civilisation, freedom, cheap products, revival of trade —everything is for the people! And the population will find itself with a growing twofold interest: the rich, to have their meat sound, and the poor, to have the “Freibank” well stocked with meat relatively fit for use.

Written on June 8 (21), 1913 Published on June 16, 1913Printed from in Pravda No. 137the Pravda text Signed: V.

DRAFT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE R.S.D.L.P. C.C. AND THE PRIBOI GROUP ON ITS RECOGNITION AS THE R.S.D.L.P. C.C. PUBLISHERS369 Introduction X)) merits and important role. I. In view of the advance of the business and the need for official recognition, it should be correctly constituted as the C. C. Publishers on the following principles: 292 V. I. LENIN

a) the group shall autonomously conduct the administrative and organisational sector; b) all books and material which are not urgent shall be submitted to the C.C. for preliminary review, and the urgent ones shall be published without such submission, but with the C.C. representative having the right of veto. In the event of differences and the impossibility of agreement, the question shall be referred to the full C.C. collegium for the final decision. The same full collegium shall decide the question of publishing pamphlets in the event of any differences between the C.C. representative and the Priboi collegium on the question of pamphlets coming in through the C.C. representative. c) The C.C. appoints Comrade X to take charge of the financial side of its publishers.

August 7, 1913

First published in 1962 in the Printed from magazine Istorichesky Arkhiv No. 1 the original

THE OCTOBRISTS AND THE WORKING-CLASS MOVEMENT The current political situation in Russia is of especial interest. The negotiations between the Cadets, the Pro- gressists and the Octobrists on common “opposition” tactics in the Duma, on the one hand, and the working-class movement, on the other, testify not only to a “revival”, but to something else as well. One of the highly instructive documents of our interesting period is the appeal issued by the Central Committee of the Union of October Seventeen to party members, urging them (according to Rech) to “discard their apathy and set about working with vigour”. According to the Octobrist C.C., “now that the revolutionary forces are once again coming into motion, evidence of which is incidentally provided by the strikes, all high- THE OCTOBRISTS AND WORKING-CLASS MOVEMENT 293 minded citizens sincerely desirous of the state’s progressive development should join the Union of October Seventeen, thereby increasing its membership and enhancing its prestige”. The work of the Octobrists, their C.C. believes, should “paralyse the influence of the destructive elements who are again raising their voice in importunate and vociferous calls for another revolution in Russia’s political and social system. The Central Committee gives a reminder of the sacrifices the state and society will have to suffer, if high- minded men now sit back and shun social activity. The Central Committee is sure that millions of loyal Russian citizens will not allow a handful of revolutionaries to ruin Russia”. That is how Rech (No. 275) reports the contents of the interesting appeal from the Octobrist C.C., without apparently finding any departures in it from normal Octobrist policy. Let us examine the appeal of the Octobrist C.C. as a document characterising the history of our time. The Octobrists are invited to “discard apathy”. This means that there has been apathy up to now, doesn’t it? When the forces of reaction were triumphant, the Octobrists were apathetic. When it looked as if the forces of reaction would be adequate to maintain “order”—the Octobrists were satisfied and saw no need to “set about working”. When the forces of reaction have proved to be inadequate (the forces opposed to the reactionaries “are once again coming into motion”)— then ... then the Octobrists vigorously set about the business of helping reaction. Indeed, is it not helping reaction for an influential Duma group to start bashing the “importunate and vociferous” Left-wingers, their desire to “ruin Russia”? Just think: a “handful” only, and they threaten to “ruin Russia”! The Left-wingers, whose newspapers (numbering at least a dozen all over Russia) are being confiscated almost daily, are remarkable, please note, for their “importunity and voci- ferousness”! And that, you will note, is a word-for-word repetition of the truly importunate and vociferous phrases which the reader will find any day in the Black-Hundred government press. This gives us a picture of what the preaching of “progressive” ideas “in the spirit of the October 17 Manifesto” has 294 V. I. LENIN actually come to. As soon as the working-class movement gained in strength and brought about a general revival in social life, our bourgeois “Progressists” at once bared their teeth, not against reaction, but against the working- class movement. Russia is again facing a balance of forces, similar to the one in evidence eight or nine years ago, but on an extended scale, over a wider field. At that time, the Octobrists, the Progressists and the Cadets were still undifferentiated and existed together as a united and ostensibly “leading society”. It would appear that we now have three developed political parties of the bourgeoisie—the Octobrists, the Progressists and the Cadets—who have gone through and tried themselves out in three Dumas and in the eventful years from 1906 to 1912. There is an ideal division of labour between them: the Octobrists declare outright war on the Lefts and do so in the resolute Black-Hundred spirit; the Progressists were in agreement with the Octobrists yesterday, and today are doing the same thing, promising to pursue this respectable occupation for a long time; the Cadets, for their part, have also long been in “agreement” with the Progressists, friends of the Octobrists, assuring the people of their democratism, you will pardon the expression. If the working-class movement eight years ago ignored all the Octobrist and the Cadet overt and covert betrayals and vacillations, there is good reason to believe that the workers have not grown more stupid since then.

Za Pravdu No. 10, October 15, 1913 Printed from the Signed: K - pov Za Pravdu text

ON THE “JUBILEE OF THE RUSSIAN INTELLIGENTSIA” The 50th anniversary of Moscow’s liberal newspaper has evoked torrents of laudatory speeches from Russian liberals of every stripe. That is natural, legitimate and consistent. Liberals can be expected to celebrate the jubilee of the liberal newspaper. Russkiye Vedomosti370 has been no worse than other liberal newspapers, and in some respects (as in ON “JUBILEE OF RUSSIAN INTELLIGENTSIA” 295 the abundance of scientific material) it has certainly been above the liberal average. But when the rhetoricians of liberalism, Messrs. Kova- levsky, Milyukov, Manuilov, Bunin and their like, praise “Russkiye Vedomosti” on behalf of democracy and from an ostensibly democratic standpoint, that is a flagrant lie and it cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. Distinguished and notable liberals! You all swear that you stand for political freedom. But you refuse to understand one simple fact, namely, that a liberal society in Russia which allows counter-revolutionary statements by liberals to go unchallenged, does not deserve political freedom and will never get it. You are celebrating the 50th anniversary of Russkiye Vedomosti, aren’t you? That’s fine. In that case, do not hide the truth, do not forget that Russkiye Vedomosti was one of the first liberal newspapers to trip up the first serious and deep-going mass movement in Russia, whose aim was to attain political freedom. That was in the summer of 1905. The leading light of liberal science and liberal publicism, Mr. Professor Vinogra- dov the historian, then contributed to Russkiye Vedomosti a remarkable, unforgettable, and memorable “historic” article. His main idea was as follows: let’s hope our movement does not go beyond the German one of 1848-49, otherwise the Prussian watchman will have to restore order over here. That’s the kind of thing Russkiye Vedomosti, organ of the liberals, printed in the summer of 1905!! Let everyone in Russia who wants to gain a reputation for being a democrat ponder this historical fact. History has proved—and its proof is irrefutable—that the movement in the autumn of 1905 was weak and inadequate, while a famous liberal found it much too strong in the summer of 1905, and put spokes in its wheels. The fact is there. It is incontrovertible. This liberal and all his fellows, all his—you will pardon me the expression— fellow-politicians among the liberals bear the moral and political blame for the Jewish pogroms in the autumn of 1905. For, incidentally, the pogromists drew for strength and impudence on precisely this “Vinogradov”-type mood of liberal society. 296 V. I. LENIN

The “Vinogradov”-type liberals have the government they fully deserve. The “Vinogradov” liberal writing in Russkiye Vedomosti, and Purishkevich, the collective Purishkevich, are only two sides of the same medal, they are interconnected and interdependent phenomena. There can be no political freedom in Russia until she has (or because she lacks) mass democracy with a clear understanding of the total short-sightedness, absurdity and vileness of the “Vinogradov”-type liberalism of Russkiye Vedomosti. Za Pravdu No. 10,Printed from the October 15, 1913Za Pravdu text

DRAFT RESOLUTION BY WORKERS’ ORGANISATIONS ON THE SLANDEROUS LIQUIDATORS’ CHARGE AGAINST INSURANCE WORKER X371 Having examined the liquidators’ charge in their Novaya Rabochaya Gazeta against insurance worker X, and having obtained all the testimonials from the Editorial Board of the liquidators’ newspaper and from the Editorial Board of Za Pravdu, which on October 17 published the decision of a commission from five Marxist institutions, we, the board of such and such a league or society, find this decision correct and the liquidators’ campaign slanderous. We urge workers, in order to safeguard their organisation from ruin, to boycott the slanderers, unless they make a firm and public retraction of their slanders. Written not earlier than October 19 (November 1 ), 1913 First published in 1965 Printed from in Vol. 54 of the Fifth Russian the original edition of the Collected Works

RUSSIAN WORKERS’ ASSESSMENT OF THE SPLIT IN THE DUMA SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC GROUP Both Social-Democratic newspapers in St. Petersburg, which express the views of the liquidators and the pro- Party men, carry statements by workers’ groups from all OUTLINE OF REPORT TO LOCAL ORGANISATIONS 297 over Russia. In these statements, the workers define their attitude to the two Social-Democratic Duma groups: 1) the Social-Democratic group (7 deputies & Jagiello), and 2) the Russian Social-Democratic Labour group—6 Social-Demo- cratic workers’ deputies. We are now in a position to sum up the exact results of the workers’ decisions, according to the data in both newspapers, for a whole month, from October 20 to November 20, old style. The most exact workers’ statements, never once questioned by either side, are the resolutions with a definite number of signatures. The overall result, for the whole of Russia (not only the Caucasus, but also the Bund and the Latvians have a special representation on the International Socialist Bureau), is: 4,850 for the Russian Social-Democrat- ic Labour group (6 deputies) and 2,539 for the Social-Demo- cratic group (7 deputies & Jagiello). Trade unions, as represented by their boards (for police reasons the names of the trade unions in Russia are not published) = 9 unions with 13,500 members, for the 6 deputies; and one union with an unspecified membership, for the 7 deputies. Written between November 20 and December 1 (December 3 and 14), 1913 First published in 1961 in Vol. 24Printed from of the Fifth Russian editionthe original of the Collected Works

OUTLINE OF A REPORT TO LOCAL ORGANISATIONS ON THE PORONIN JOINT CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. C.C. AND PARTY FUNCTIONARIES (1913)372 Outline of a Report to Local Organisations December 12 General theme—events of the strike movement and Party life since the summer of 1913. Conference resolutions. In particular, the following points are brought out: 1. A general strike on January 9, 1914. Conference decision. Necessity of the strike. Its slogans (democratic republic. 298 V. I. LENIN

8-hour working day, confiscation of landed estates). Inten- sified preparations for the strike. 2. Insurance campaign. More extensive circulation of the magazine Voprosy Strakhovaniya.373—Formation of Party cells inside all societies and all boards. Getting our own, Party, majority on the boards (also in trade unions, clubs, etc., etc.). 3. The Six and the Seven. The main reasons for the split: (a) liquidationism=destruction of the Party. Struggle over that. The Seven incline to liquidationism; (b) the Seven do not recognise Party decisions; (c) the majority of the Party has been proved to back the Six. Main figures from Pravda. Issues with material on the question of the split should be on hand. (Resolutions for the Six should be pressed forward.) 4. Party congress. Necessity of it. Participation in it of all illegal Party cells. Its preparation: money is the main thing. Collection of fund for congress (mainly through the deputies). The task for each group or union of groups is by the spring to collect double the amount of expenses (expenses per delegate—150 rubles. Each group or union of adjacent groups must collect 300 rubles). 5. The need to develop ties—to strengthen them (teaching correspondence with the St. Petersburg Bureau and the Bureau Abroad). The correspondence is weak: that is why transport is poor. There must be agents everywhere. 6. A review of the main points from the resolutions of the conference. For instance, on the national question: (a) struggle against every brand of nationalism, even the refined one (cultural-national autonomy); (b) unity of workers of all nationalities; (c) struggle against Great-Russian Black- Hundred nationalism. (Idem briefly about the other resolutions.) 7. Legal and illegal press. Increase collections. The legal press will inevitably go down: concentrate efforts on creating an illegal one (see “Announcement”, pp. 9-10 especially).

Written on November 29 (December 12), 1913 First published in 1923 in the book Printed from Iz epokhi “Zvezdy” i “Pravdy”a copy written (1911-1914) (From the Zvezda and in N. K. Krupskaya’s Pravda Period), Part III hand ON THE QUESTION OF THE BUREAU’S NEXT STEPS 299

ON THE QUESTION OF THE BUREAU’S NEXT STEPS

A number of groups abroad, big, small and tiny, are making a lot of noise over the forthcoming sitting of the International Socialist Bureau on December 1 (14).374 By the time Tuesday’s edition is out there will perhaps be some news, by cable, of the Bureau’s decision. I believe it to be my duty, therefore, to describe the state of affairs so as to prevent any false rumours and to make it possible to adopt the right tone at once. The small and tiny groups abroad, who have no support in Russia (like Rosa Luxemburg and the Tyszka people, or Charles Rappoport, who recently wrote in a small French paper in the same spirit, or Alexinsky and the Vperyod group in Paris, etc., etc.), all these little groups are straining hard to have the Bureau take a vote for “unity”. Of course, we too want unity!! The efforts of the little groups are a pathetic move to protect the liquidators. This move of theirs will fail: they will make a fuss and that’s as far as it will go. What decision will the Bureau take? That is, of course, something we don’t know. But we were told by a very prominent member (or even a group of members) that for formal reasons the idea is to admit the liquidator O.C., instead of Plekhanov, and from the Duma group, only the Seven, or rather the Eight. These formal reasons are as follows: the parliamentary groups in every country do not represent the parties, but only themselves, let us say there are eight Socialist-Revolutionaries and seven Social-Democrats—then only the eight S.R.s. are sent in. Since that is so (that will be verified), nothing can, of course, be done for the time being. Let the liquidators throw out Plekhanov—we shall see whether this is going to do them any good!!! I am sure that it will not. That is why I strongly suggest that there should be no nervousness or excitement, either over the rumours being spread by the liquidators, or over any possible Bureau decisions. We have taken steps to have the reports on Russian affairs from London written through us (about non-Russian affairs directly to you)—calmly wait for them and you 300 V. I. LENIN will find that there was no need for any trip and that neither the barking nor the Bureau will rescue the “drowning men” (the liquidators). There is private information that Plekhanov is not going. This should not be printed just yet. I repeat: calmly wait for reports from your own correspondent.

Written not later than December 1 (14), 1913 First published in 1961Printed from in Vol. 24 of the Fifth Russianthe original edition of the Collected Works

THE POVERTY OF THE PEOPLE’S TEACHERS375

In view of the All-Russia Congress on Public Education to be held in December, it is appropriate that we should turn our attention to an old question which is perpetually new: the poverty of the people’s teachers. We have before us Volume I of the One-Day Census of Primary Schools in the Empire. The volume has been published by the Ministry of Public—what you might call— Education. It is signed by the well-known statistician Mr. V. I. Pokrovsky. The bureaucratic character of this official work—bureaucratic and official in the worst sense of the words—instantly leaps to the eye. The census was taken on January 18, 1911. It took all of two years to publish its first volume dealing only with the gubernias of the St. Petersburg academic district! The only thing we seem to be able to do in our country without tedious, agonising red tape is to pass laws, like the law against the press. As is the practice, the census programme was repeatedly discussed throughout 1910 by a host of official cabinets and conferences, each of which did something to spoil it. As a result, for instance, there is only one head, “Russian Language”, on the question of the pupils’ mother tongue; it is clearly prohibited to make the subdivision into Byelo- russian, Little Russian (Ukrainian) and Great Russian. As a result, the census of the schools of the Empire does not THE POVERTY OF PEOPLE’S TEACHERS 301 include a number of schools, such as the urban schools set up under the 1872 statute, private first- and second-category schools, etc. It is prohibited to collect full data. It is prohibited to know the truth about the language spoken by the pupils at home. It is prohibited to make a comparison between public and private schools. The man who compiled these statistics, Mr. Pokrovsky, much vaunted by the liberals, has done his bit to spoil the census returns. Thus, material has been separately collected on each teacher relative to the size of salary. It is, naturally, important to know the truth on such a burning question as the poverty of the people’s teachers. It is important to know just how many masters and mistresses are receiving the desperately low, the very lowest, the very low and the low salaries in general. The material on this has been collected. The information on it is there. But our liberal statistician “processes” it in such a way as to cover up the unsavoury truth. Our statistician merely informs us of the average salaries of masters and mistresses by gubernia and the different categories of schools. The official classifications are scrupu- lously observed. But anyone who wants to know the truth is not interested in which gubernia and in which category of schools the teachers starve, but how many teachers are starving and living in poverty. It was quite possible to determine from the returns of the census how many teachers are being paid starvation salaries (say, under 360 rubles, from 360 to 400 rubles, etc.), and this should unquestionably have been done. But it has not been done. It has been buried in the hundreds of thousands of cards at the archives. What the public has been informed of is only the officially purged and officially embellished averages of salaries by category and gubernia.... Need we say, too, that the liberal statisticians made a point of concealing from the public what percentage of the starving teachers have families. These “average” figures show that a schoolmistress (in the St. Petersburg academic district) receives 433 rubles a year, and a schoolmaster, 376. But most of the teachers are in the countryside. There “average” salaries are 347 rubles for the schoolmistress, and 367 rubles for the schoolmaster. (Let us 302 V. I. LENIN note that the overall number of schoolmistresses is double that of schoolmasters). Most of the teachers of the St. Petersburg district are outside St. Petersburg Gubernia. The salaries of schoolmistresses are: Olonets Gubernia—375 rubles; Novgorod Gubernia—358 rubles; Vologda Gubernia—320 rubles; Archangel Gubernia—319 rubles; and Pskov Gubernia— 312 rubles. Even these figures, which put a gloss on reality, make it clear that the majority of schoolmistresses are paid a starvation salary. With the present high cost of living the ?6-30 rubles a month for schoolmistresses, of whom (on average again) 11.5 per cent are married and 4.4 per cent are widows, is undoubtedly a beggarly salary which condemns teachers to starvation and indigence. From the “category” data we find that 2,180 schoolmistresses worked in parish one-class schools (in the St. Peters- burg academic district, with a total of 7,693 schoolmistresses). Consequently, we have here a “category” with a highly impressive number of teachers. What then are they paid? An average of 30? rubles in the towns, and 301 rubles in the villages. The Russian state spends hundreds of millions of rubles on the maintenance of its civil service, the police, the army, etc., while dooming teachers in the people’s schools to starvation. The bourgeoisie “sympathises” with public education—with the proviso, however, that the teachers live in worse conditions than the servants in the manor-houses and the houses of the rich....

Za Pravdu No. 51, Printed from the December 4 , 1913 Za Pravdu text

RUSSIAN WORKERS AND THE INTERNATIONAL In this issue of our newspaper comrades workers will find a detailed account of the recent sitting of the International Socialist Bureau in London, and also its resolution on the question of unity of the Social-Democratic forces in Russia. Class-conscious workers throughout Russia must discuss this resolution with the utmost attention. RUSSIAN WORKERS AND THE INTERNATIONAL 303

A class-conscious worker feels and realises himself to be not only a member of the Russian Marxist family—he is aware that he is also a member of the international family of Marxists. He also has duties to the workers’ International. He must take account of the opinions and wishes of the latter. He must not lose touch with the international workers’ army for a single moment. Russian Marxist workers will welcome the fact that the workers’ International has shown a desire to make a serious study of the principled discussions which have such a prominent part to play in our Russian working-class movement. The accursed conditions of Russian social and political life have led to a state where our comrades know much less about our movement than about the movement in any other country. This lack of knowledge about the real state of affairs in Russia is such that just recently German Social- Democratic spokesmen proposed the convocation of all circles of Russian Social-Democrats abroad (12 “trends” abroad) to work out a new programme for the Party.* But, after all, everyone knows that the Russian proletariat worked out such a programme back in 1903.... This period is, fortunately, about to end. By its great and heroic struggle, the Russian proletariat has made itself a talking point throughout the civilised world. The working class of Russia has by rights taken up its place in the workers’ International, and it is safe to say that with every passing year its role in the international arena will be ever bigger and more important. The decision of the International Bureau gives Russian workers their first chance to acquaint our West-European comrades with the basic substance of our discussions. The Bureau has put the question like this: 1) it has offered its good offices to bring about unity; 2) it believes the actual differences must be brought out; 3) therefore it has authorised its Executive Committee to contact and arrange an exchange of opinion with all Social-Democrats accepting the Social-Democratic programme and also those whose programme is close to the Social-Democratic. Russian Marxists find all this quite acceptable.

* See this volume, pp. 274-77.—Ed. 304 V. I. LENIN

It is indeed extremely desirable to bring out the differences. And even not only those between the Marxists and the liquidators, but also those between the Marxists and the Narodniks, and the Zionist Socialists (whom we regard as being not much worse than the Bund and the P.P.S.), etc. It would be a considerable success if the International Bureau managed to secure clear cut and precise formulations and to establish the actual basis of the political differences. But to clear up the differences does not at all mean to eliminate them. The differences stem from the absolutely divergent views of the present epoch in Russia. They constitute two tactics, two systems of policy—the proletarian and the liberal. Nothing will eliminate this divergence. But even there it is extremely desirable to have a precise and definite elucidation of the terms for unity put forward by each of the sides. Marxist workers are faced with this important task: they must have a thorough discussion of the International Bureau’s proposal and give it every possible attention, outlining their own terms of unity. These terms are clear. They flow from the whole course of the working-class movement. The liquidators must in fact recognise the Marxist whole, they must recognise that the main slogans for agitation among the masses are the three old and basic demands; they must withdraw their amendments to the programme (cultural-national autonomy); they must refrain from shouting about the “strike itch”; condemn the Bundists’ separatist strivings and demand local mergers; condemn the malicious personal attacks which poison the ideological struggle, etc. In the sphere of Duma activity, the Seven must unconditionally recognise their subordination to the Marxist whole and retract their anti-Party decisions (Jagiello, abolition of the programme, etc.). Even Comrade Plekhanov, who disagrees with us on many points, says in his letter to the Internation- al Bureau that “our Duma group is divided in consequence of certain regrettable decisions adopted by our comrades liquidators, who find themselves in a majority of seven to six”. HOW THE LIQUIDATORS ARE CHEATING THE WORKERS 305

It has not yet been cleared up whom it would be useful for the International Bureau to contact for arranging the general exchange of opinion. It is clear that there are two possible ways: either invitations should go out to representatives of the two principal trends: Marxists and liquidators, or to “all Social-Democrats”, and all who regard themselves as being close to the Social-Democrats, in which case it would mean the party of deputy Jagiello (P.P.S.) and various Jewish socialist groups, and those of the Narodniks who consider their stand close to the Social-Democratic programme. Every class-conscious worker should take an interest in the question raised by the International Bureau. We urge all workers to raise this question at their meetings, circles, talks, rallies, etc., to discuss it, to adopt their resolutions and to publish their opinion in our newspaper. It is wrong to think that this business is remote and has nothing to do with us. If the question is raised at the international congress in Vienna376 (something Marxists would very gladly welcome), the International must know the opinion of the Russian workers, of the proletarian organisations operating in Russia, and not only of the isolated circles abroad. Comrades! Discuss this important question, adopt your decisions and communicate them to your newspaper, Proletarskaya Pravda. The class conscious workers of all countries will listen to what you say.

Proletarskaya Pravda No. 2, Printed from the December 8 , 1913 Proletarskaya Pravda text

HOW THE LIQUIDATORS ARE CHEATING THE WORKERS The International Socialist Bureau has decided to take steps to clarify the differences between Russian socialists and to offer its good offices to unite their forces. What have the liquidators made of this decision? They have right away made use of it to cheat the Russian workers. 306 V. I. LENIN

A solemn editorial article in No. 97 of Novaya Rabochaya Gazeta377 says: “By rejecting the demand of the ‘Six’ for special representation in the interparliamentary section, the International Bureau not only unequivocally condemned their break-away from the Social-Democratic group, but also gave a proper assessment of one of the main demands, whose rejection the six deputies tried to use as an explanation and justification of their walk-out.” That is not true from start to finish. We noted this in No. 1 of our newspaper.378 The liquidators, caught red-handed, are trying to mislead the workers by continuing their lies. We repeat that the International Bureau did not reject the demand of the Six. It did not condemn their “break- away”. It did not even go into an examination of the dispute between the six and the seven deputies. This is nothing but a liquidationist trick. The liquidator gentlemen resorted to the same criminal method last year after the sitting of the International Bureau, when Mr. Martov attributed to the German Social- Democrat Haase words he had never said against the Bol- sheviks, for which he was subsequently exposed in Haase’s published statement. Here is how the question of deputy representation stood in the Bureau. The representative of the Marxists merely said that the delegate of the Seven was elected only by the Seven and that the Russian Social-Democratic Labour group does not recognise him as its delegate. Comrade Huysmans, Secretary of the International Bureau, gave the following explanation. There are special rules on the interparliamentary section. According to the rules, where there are several separate socialist groups in a given parliament, representation is given only to the group which has more deputies; the rules take no account of which party the given parliamentary group belongs to and how many workers there are behind it. The point to note is that parties have their own special representation . Under these rules, if there were, say, two groups in the Duma, six Social-Democrats and seven Narodniks, only the Narodniks would be given the vote in the interparliamentary representation. HOW THE LIQUIDATORS ARE CHEATING THE WORKERS 307

Here is another example: Bulgaria. There, 19 Shiroki Socialists (opportunists) and 18 Marxists were elected to Parliament. The two constitute separate parties and have two separate groups in Parliament. Both parties also have separate representatives on the Bureau. But according to the rules, the parliamentary representation can go only to the Shiroki group of 19. That does not mean, in any sense, that the Bureau “condemned” the 18 Marxist deputies. That was the formal side of the matter. Any view can be taken of the rules. But just now that’s what they are. In these conditions, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour group could not even present its demand. What should the Seven have done if they wished to be honest? They should have waived the formalities themselves. It has now been proved and recognised by everyone that several times more organised Social-Democratic workers are backing the Russian Social-Democratic Labour group than the Seven. The implication is clear. Those who wish to reckon with the voice of the workers, those who talk so much about unity, should in that case have done more than take the strictly formal approach. However, the Seven capitalised on their “luck” under the rules. They have once again issued a challenge to the Russian workers. What is more, the liquidator gentlemen also began to tell lies about the International allegedly “condemning” the Six, etc. That was the first response on the part of the liquidator gentlemen to the resolution of the International Socialist Bureau. Marxist workers will respond to this liquidator fraud by publicly branding these gentlemen. Comrades, you must continue your serious and thorough discussion of the Bureau’s decision, voice your opinion and give the liquidators the response they deserve for their attempts to cheat the Russian workers.

Proletarskaya Pravda No. 3, Printed from the December 10, 1913 Proletarskaya Pravda text 308 V. I. LENIN

RESOLUTION ON THE SOCIALIST BUREAU’S DECISION We warmly welcome the decision of the workers’ Interna- tional concerning the need for full and final clarification of the substantial and basic differences existing in Russia between the political trends participating in the working- class movement. In response to the International’s proposal we believe it necessary, for our part, to outline the basic differences which, in our opinion, divide the Marxists and the liquidators into two irreconcilable camps. We declare, first of all, that for any class-conscious worker it is not a matter of setting up some new entity, but merely of strengthening and fully restoring the old organisation as it took shape more than 15 years ago—with its old programme and its most important tactical decisions. The liquidators have split away from this Marxist organisation. These are the necessary conditions for restoring unity with them in the sphere of work outside the Duma: 1) Full and unconditional recognition (in fact) of “the underground”, unconditional subordination to the decisions of its cells and an undertaking not to allow, in any circumstances, any kind of attacks against it in the press. 2) Full and unconditional recognition of the fact that the main task of the epoch consists of the three principal demands put forward by the working class of Russia, per- formance of work in that spirit, and repudiation of the liberal-reformist preachings calling for abdication of the old tasks. 3) Retraction of all attempts to change the programme of the Marxists (cultural-national autonomy) and unconditional acceptance of the programme worked out in 1903. 4) Full subordination on questions connected with the strike movement to the decisions of workers organised on Marxist lines, and repudiation of the struggle against the so-called “strike itch”. 5) Recognition in fact of the proletariat’s independent tactics, and refusal to play down the tasks of the working class for the sake of blocs with the liberals. RESOLUTION ON THE SOCIALIST BUREAU’S DECISION 309

6) Recognition that in the matter of work in the trade unions guidance should be taken from the decisions of the International Socialist Congress in Stuttgart and the London Congress of Russian Marxists. 7) Repudiation of the principle of establishing workers’ organisations on the national basis. Establishment of united organisations in Poland and the North-Western Territory. Fulfilment by the Bund of the decision on local mergers which has been repeatedly reiterated by Russian Marxists as a whole. These are the terms for unity in the sphere of Duma activity: I. Recognition that the group is an organ unconditionally subordinated to the organised will of the Marxist whole. II. Retraction of all the violations of the programme (cultural-national autonomy, acceptance of Jagiello, etc.). III. Condemnation of the splitting acts of the Seven, which have also been condemned by G. V. Plekhanov in his letter to the International Socialist Bureau. As for the groups which it would be useful for the international Bureau to contact for arranging a general exchange of opinion, we demand, above all, that participation in it should be confined exclusively to representatives of workers’ organisations existing in Russia, and should in no instance include any of the circles abroad which are not connected with work in Russia. We furthermore believe that: 1) either invitations should go out only to the representatives of the two principal trends struggling in Russia, i.e., the Marxists and the liquidators, 2) or, if there is a desire to clarify all differences in general between the Russian Social-Democrats and those who regard themselves as Social-Democrats, invitations should go out without exception, to all workers’ organisations operating in Russia and regarding themselves as being close to the Social-Democrats. In that case, there is no reason to exclude some of the Left-wing Narodniks, or the Jewish groups who regard themselves as socialists and who compete with the Bund, etc. Finally, we feel sure that in order to throw a true light on the differences among Russian Social-Democrats, the foreign socialist press will make its pages available to res- 310 V. I. LENIN ponsible representatives of Russian organisations who— in contrast to émigré circles and irresponsible persons— could give the foreign comrades a precise idea of the ideological and political basis of the differences in the Russian working-class movement. A group of organised Marxists Proletarskaya Pravda No. 9, Printed from the December 17, 1913 Proletarskaya Pravda text

ABOUT OUR SCHOOLS The all-Russia school census of January 18, 1911, makes it possible—despite the extremely bad processing of the data—slightly to lift the veil of official secrecy. The only data available so far are those on the St. Peters- burg academic district, separately for the towns and villages. Let us see on the basis of these data what our parish schools are like. In the towns, there were 329 city one-class schools, 139 private third-category and 177 parish one-class schools. Let us compare the schoolmistresses’ average salaries (the number of schoolmasters is quite small): city schools— 924 rubles a year, private—609, parish—30?. Poor, starving schoolmistresses—that is what our parish schools are. Let us see what the percentage of teachers with higher and secondary lay general education is. In the city schools— 76 per cent, private—67 per cent, and parish—18 per cent! Uneducated schoolmistresses (we say nothing as yet about the teachers of catechism)—that is what our parish schools are. In the villages we have 3,545 Zemstvo one-class schools and 2,506 parish one-class schools. In the former, the average salary of schoolmistresses is 374 rubles a year, in the latter—301 rubles. In the former, educated teachers (teachers in general) come to 20 per cent, in the latter—2.5 per cent—once again without the teachers of catechism. These data give an idea of the plight of the parish schools! DUMA GROUP AND THE MAJORITY OUTSIDE 311

The census has also collected data on the average number of square arshins* of floor-space and cubic arshins of air- space per pupil—i.e., the crowding of schools. The Zemstvo schools have 2.6 sq. arshins of floor-space and 10.1 cu. arshins of air; the parish schools, 2.4 sq. arshins and 9.6 cu. arshins, respectively. The floor-space should be six times the light area of the windows. Actually, it is nine times greater, i.e., the schools are not only crowded, but also dark. These data are, of course, extremely meagre. The Ministry tried very hard to prevent the collection of detailed, precise and full data on the beggarly condition of our schools. Even so, the beggarly condition of the parish schools stands out in these incomplete, officially curtailed and poorly processed data. One of the vital tasks before the representatives of workers’ cultural and educational and trade union organisations at the forthcoming All-Russia Congress on Public Education is to make a comprehensive presentation of the question and to shed every possible light on the condition of our schools and schoolteachers.

Proletarskaya Pravda No. 10, Printed from the December 18, 1913 Proletarskaya Pravda text

THE DUMA GROUP AND THE MAJORITY OUTSIDE Lomtatidze’s letter on the struggle between the Six and the Seven in the Duma group was curiously run in the liquidators’ newspaper alongside the calculation that 3,701 persons came out in favour of the liquidators (No. 75, p. 2). We leave the verification of this figure for another article, merely noting that three days earlier Za Pravdu (No. 26) reported the figure of 5,000, which has not been refuted by our opponents. The Seven have been clearly shown again and again to represent a minority of the workers.

* Arshin=28 inches.—Ed. 312 V. I. LENIN

That is why Lomtatidze’s “tough words” make an especially awkward impression. It is a sign of extreme weakness and impotent irritation to call names, to give a reminder of various episodes of the old and most embittered struggle, and to shout: “This is impudent, absurd, cynical”, etc., etc. It remains an unrefuted and incontrovertible fact that 1) the majority of class-conscious workers are backing the Six; and that 2) the Seven refuse to recognise the will and the decisions of the majority, and also refuse to recognise the governing institution accepted by the majority. One feels a sense of embarrassment and shame for the irritated Lomtatidze, when he says: “Have they (theFROM Six) indicated MARX a single instance in which the political actions in the Duma have run counter to the interests of our cause,TO our MAO slogans and our traditions?” Lomtatidze’s lofty tone makes a false impression, once we are aware that not only the Six, but the highest governing institution, which they recognise, have long since indicated officially and in formal terms the violation of the programme by the Seven, to cite an instance! With his clumsy irritation and his irrelevant questions, Lomtatidze merely underscores the really profound essence of the entire conflict—the fight of non-party men against the Party principle.NOT That is the FOR essence. Nor is it a joke or a trifle but the most serious and painful question. Not everyone who says: “Lord! Lord!” will enter the kingdom of heaven!COMMERCIAL Not everyone who beats his breast and shouts “unity, unity” is actually working for unity. What is workingDISTRIBUTION-class unity? It is above all and chiefly unity of its political organisation, of its entity. That is the only kind of unity that can ensure real unity of the Duma group and of all the action and struggle of the working class in general. That is the unity the liquidationist trend has violated, as the Party’s official resolutions have repeatedly recognised since 1908. That is the crux of the matter. In evading it, Lomtatidze merely reveals his error. The Seven are entirely to blame for the split, because they have violated the programme, they have come out in defence of the liquidators, who were destroying the Party, they have ignored the formal decisions of the majority, and THESES FOR LECTURE ON NATIONAL QUESTION 313

they have been violating the will of the organised workers. There is no other way out for them but to recognise their fault, accept the Six as representatives of the majority and start systematically moving closer to them through an agreement. Proletarskaya Pravda No. 17,Printed from the December 29, 1913Proletarskaya Signed: I.Pravda text

THESES FOR A LECTURE ON THE NATIONAL QUESTION379 National Question (Theses from Memory) P A) Importance of the national question at the present time. N B) Place of national movements in history (resp. historical N approach to the national question). M C) Two theories on the national question. N D) Self-determination of nations. N E) Equality and guarantee of minority rights. Autonomy. F) Cultural-national autonomy. Q G) National principle in Party organisation.

A. Introduction. Importance of the National Question at the Current Historical Moment 1. Government’s nationalism. All counter-revolution is dyed in nationalistic colours. 2.Idem—bourgeois liberalism (Struve & Co.). 3. With incredible, unprecedented oppression of non- Russian nations (57 per cent of the population of Russia)—nationalism in oppressed nations (pan- European fight). 4. Breach of R.S.D.L.P. programme (distortion of self-determination&cultural-national autonomy). 5. Split of Jewish separatism. National isolation. B. 6. National question must be viewed historically and economically. National question is a world- wide phenomenon. 314 V. I. LENIN

7. Epoch of national movements—end of Middle Ages and start of new period, epoch of bourgeois- democratic revolutions. At the time, national movements everywhere. 8. Economic foundations? Capitalism demands consolidation of domestic market. The market is the centre of commercial relations. Language is the chief instrument of human commercial relations. 9. Consolidation of national areas (restoration of language, national awakening, etc.) and establishment of national state. Economic necessity of it. 10. Political superstructure over the economy. Democ- racy, sovereignty of nation. Hence, “national state”.... 11. National state is the rule throughout the world (K. Kautsky in I, 18*, pp. ?3 and ?3-?5, Internationalität), while “state of nationalities is the exception”.380 K. Kautsky about O. Bauer: Bauer under- estimates the urge for national state. (“the strength of the Drang”) NB In brackets: some people believe that the national state means greater nationalism than cultural-national autonomy. That is a naive and ridiculous delusion! The national state is the rule in the record of world history. Cultural-national autonomy is an invention of rather poor intellectuals which has not been realised anywhere. 12. Epoch of national (bourgeois-democratic) revolutions of the nineteenth century (Italy, Germany). It is over in Western Europe. It has just started in the East and in Asia.... C. Two theories of Marxism on the national question. 13. Emergence of proletarian parties in national states.

* Reference to p. 18 of the first notebook on the national question.—Ed. THESES FOR LECTURE ON NATIONAL QUESTION 315

Backward East. “Theories” of national question. (Little attention given to theoretical basis. K. Kautsky&O. Bauer.) 14. O.Bauer. Nation= Kulturgemeinschaft*. “Nation- al culture” slogan ((red thread)). The main thing is the national character. (Mass of reservations, but that is not important.) (Kautsky’s assessment: Kulturgemein- schaft=O. Bauer’s main mistake.) 15. “Socialism will put more emphasis on the principle of nationality” (O. Bauer I, 5**—p. 53? of his book). 16. Bauer’s basic mistake is refined nationalism, a nationalism which is clean, without exploitation and without fighting. Proudhon used to clean up, idealise and embellish NB capitalism, O. Bauer does the same to nationalism. 17. The policy of the ruling classes is “conservative- national”, ours is “evolutionary-national” (O. Bauer). 18. “We are not satisfied with the old internationalism” (O. Bauer) (O. Bauer I, 6). 19. ΣΣ of O. Bauer (α) idealistic theory of nation (β) national culture slogan (=bourgeois) (γ) nationalism purified, refined, absolute, right up to socialism (δ) internationalism completely forgotten. Σ=national opportunism (Pannekoek). 20. Confused O. Bauer, exposed by K. Kautsky. (α) Eigentümlich und hinfällig*** in that O. Bauer keeps talking about national culture. (I, 17) (p. 15, Internationalität) (β) “Nie ist eine rein nationale Kultur weniger mög- lich gewesen” (ibidem, 15, Internationa- lität)**** * Cultural community.—Ed. ** Here and below the reference is to pages 5, 6 and 17 of the first notebook on the national question.—Ed. *** Peculiarity and weak spot.—Ed. **** “Never before has a purely national culture been less possible” (ibidem, 15, Internationality).—Ed. 316 V. I. LENIN

displacement: Br. Fr. Ger. 1800: 20 —30 —30 (Σ= 80) — Example: 1900: 125 —40 —70 (Σ =235) ((English, or perhaps & Russian, may be a world language)) (γ) “Our internationalism is not a special NB type of nationalism, differing from bourgeois by non-aggressiveness, equality, etc., but an economically and culturally united social organism” (ibidem, p. 17). In O. Bauer this view has disap- NB peared behind the “Betonung der nationalen Kultur”.* (δ) The nation is not Kultur-, not Schick- sal-, but Sprachgemeinschaft.** (ε) What O. Bauer has is “more emphasis on the national aspect”.... (ζ) ΣΣ (in K. Kautsky)—gewaltige NB Ueberschätzung des nationalen ... Mo-

mentes (35, Internationalität). Völlige

Vernachlässigung internationalen.*** 21. K. Kautsky has Sprache und Territorium**** ÿ historico-economic theory then national state —and in bourgeois-democratic NB movement now internationalism at present. ÿ D. §9 of the programme=political self-determination. 22. What it means in principle and as used by the whole of international democracy since 1848=political separation, formation of national state.

* “Emphasis on national culture.”—Ed. ** Not a community of culture, of destiny, but a community of language.—Ed. *** Enormous exaggeration of the national ... aspect (85, Inter- nationality). Complete neglect of the International aspect.—Ed. **** Language and territory.—Ed. THESES FOR LECTURE ON NATIONAL QUESTION 317

23. What it means from the standpoint of the history of national movements throughout the world= establishment of national state. 24. Funny attempts to give this paragraph a diffe - rent interpretation (ridiculous!)!! The democratic principle in the national question (α)(α) is indissolubly bound up with the historico- economic conditions of national movements. 25. Departure from the democratic principle is betraying and forgetting the whole of history. Bourgeois revolution incomplete. (β)(β) Russia=national state at bottom, at base. the centre Pskov— Rostov-on-Don Outlying areas—non-Russian. Extreme oppression. Incompleteness of bourgeois-democratic revolution, which is impossible without a national movement and the urge to set up national states in general. 26. Russia’s international position: next to it is Austria (γ)(γ) (with an unfinished bourgeois revolution in respect of the national question) and an awakened Asia (republican China). Tsarism is the most reactionary state system. Hence the particular inevitability of the national movement, and the demand that the Great Russians recognise the right to self-determination. 27. Concrete example. Norway (six centuries under Denmark). At the beginning of the nineteenth century epoch of Napoleonic wars handed over to Sweden (under a treaty between Sweden, Britain and Russia). Taken through a war between the Swedes and the Norwegians. Annexed by Sweden. Retained complete autonomy (parliament, army, taxes, duties, etc.). Decades of friction and fighting. 1905. Start of the great revolution in the east of 318 V. I. LENIN

Europe—close by an unfinished bourgeois-democratic revolution in a neighbouring, West-European, very free state. Result? Norwegian revolution of 1905. August revolution in Norway. Decision of the parliament (August 17, 1905). Agitation by priests and landowners in Sweden.

5 million Swedes. Referendum and 2million Norwegians.

Treaty with neighbouring state. Peace and full completion. Swedish worker’s duty? Stand not only for freedom in general, not only for autonomy, but without fail, for the right to secede. 28. 1905. Finland and Poland. Deals between the national bourgeoisie and the Russian bourgeoisie. Tasks of the class parties: struggle against nationalistic deals, for an alliance with the revolutionary proletariat in Russia. 29. Result: (α) Importance of §9 from the entire P PP history of national movement. N NN (β) National oppression in Russia under N NN the national state at the base and na- M NN tional oppression in the border areas. N NN (γ) Unfinished bourgeois-democratic rev- N MM olution in Russia. Q NN (δ) Russia’s international position. NN (ε) Independent decision on the question NN of secession, but there must be prop- NN aganda. QQ

30. Special stand of P.S.D. Development of capitalism has bound up Poland and Russia closely together. Lodz factories working for the Russian market. It is not our business to set up a new class state. Is that all? (α) Failure to say: is the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia and in the East completed? No. THESES FOR LECTURE ON NATIONAL QUESTION 319

(β) The whole point is not Poland or her secession, but the Russian muzhik. 1863 November 1905 Rebuttal of the nationalism of the Russian muzhik is more than the demand for the non-oppression of nations, more than autonomy, it is, without fail, the right to secede.

To deny or weaken this is absurd and reactionary.

To deny the right to secede is to help tsarism and to indulge the Rus- NB sian muzhik’s nationalism. (γ) Example: Marx’s attitude to Poland (Lopatin) and to Ireland...381 Marx on Ireland. No nation oppressing the freedom of another nation can be free. NB Whence the P.S.D.’s absurdity? Inside-out nationalism. Scared by the Papuans. Cracow—an example. Along the wrong line. The history of the P.S.D.’s promotion of its absurd and reactionary idea. 1895: K. Kautsky (α) Materialismus einseitig* (β) are you afraid of indulging the nationalism of the petty bourgeoisie? You are helping the Russian reactionaries! 1903. Second Congress committee vs. Warski.382 E. Equality of nations and minority rights.... 31. No privileges for any nation or language. That is necessary from the standpoint of elementary democracy and working-class solidarity.

* Materialism one-sided.—Ed. 320 V. I. LENIN

32. State language. Why it is not necessary. 43 per cent Great Russians 17 per cent Little Russians 6 per cent White Russians 66 6 per cent Poles 72per cent Slavs.

33. Example of Switzerland. Separate sheet.

N T (α) Three languages (70-22-7 per cent). (β) Graubünden 100,000 inhabitants < 30,000 Romanics 1 % * to (γ) Minority rights and fundamental law. (δ) Specimen solutions for national question in bourgeois society. (Belgium, Finland, etc.) Not inventions 34. Regional autonomy and local self-government=general principle of democratic system. Borders? National & economic & traditional, etc. 35. Is it feasible? Fortunatov versus Medem. National centres should be assessed by territorial minimum, not maximum. Standpoint of Medem’s “ungratified”: absolute nationalism of petty national islets!!! 36. “If the economic bonds are to be broken” (Medem). 37. Guarantee of minority rights. Fundamental law of the state (cf. Brünn §4). 38. Medem’s objections I, 2** NB)) 39. Necessity for such a general, central law (cf. Switzerland). 40. The only guarantee is a generally democratic and centralised democratic system. * See present edition, Vol. 20, pp. 20-21.—Ed. ** Reference to p. 2 of the first notebook on the national question.—Ed. THESES FOR LECTURE ON NATIONAL QUESTION 321

F. Cultural- national autonomy. Terms: P extraterritorial P M personal M Q national Q 41. What is the plan? (1) Cadastre (2) Sejm (3) Compulsory taxation. 42. Austria’s experience (Brünn). Programme for cultural-national autonomy. Failure. Clericalism. Unfeasible. Half-way programme adopted. Absurdity stands out at once. 43. Principles behind the plan. (0) Absolute, purified nationalism. Brought to completion. (α) National culture slogan. Reactionary bourgeois slogan versus working-class movement and internationalism. National culture and international culture: P isolation — unity M union with the bour- — union with democ- geoisie, clericals, racy and socialists Q etc. of other nations. N.B.: National museum in Lvov=“national culture”!! (β) “Exemption from competence.” Utopia! Its petty- bourgeois basis. Invention of poor intellectual. “No seizure, no victimisation, no struggle” (Medem). Cf. K. Kautsky. (γ) National curias in education. Harm. Negroes in America. (δ) Objective logic: “not instead, but together” with centralised democracy. Austria versus Switzerland. (ε) Uneven class content of different nations. Not division, but separation. 322 V. I. LENIN

muzhik nations !∃and towns (ζ) Jews—mainly traders. Sophism of Bundists: we isolate for pure class struggle. 44. National autonomy for the Jews? O. Bauer and K. Kautsky. “Caste.” Jewish contribution to world culture and two trends among the Jews. 45. In Russia Jews isolated as a caste. Way out? (1) freezing isolation in one way or another (2) bringing them closer to the democratic and socialist movement of the Diaspora countries.383 “Expelling the Jews from the ranks of nations”.... 46. 10.5 million throughout the world. Two halves Asher about Vienna—150,000 . 47. All bourgeois parties of the Jews have adopted cultural-national autonomy in Russia !∃& petty-bourgeois democracy 1907 & Bund? (section) What sort of grist has Bauer’s (petty-bourgeois, opportunist) invention become? G. National principle in the organisation of socialist parties. Austria. Only since Wimberg (1907). (Otto Bauer. I, 7. 1907.) Otto Bauer I, 7 about her opponents idem I, 8.* Split and collapse. Czech separatists (1910 Copenhagen Congress) and their sympathies for the Bund. * Reference to pp. 7 and 8 of the first notebook on the national question.—Ed. INSERTION FOR KRUPSKAYA’S ARTICLE 323

Russia “Federation 1889-1903. Bund’s withdrawal from the Party. of the worst 1903-1906. type” 384 1907-11. Medem separate sheet Integration (Caucasus, Riga, Vilna). Unity from below.

Language*: 1) Cf. spread of languages.

Liége: February 2, 1914 Rabinovich: National question = “invention”.

Written between January 10 and 20 (January 23 and February 2), 1914 First published in 1937 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXX the original

INSERTION FOR N. K. KRUPSKAYA’S ARTICLE “ON THE QUESTION OF THE POLICY OF THE MINISTRY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION”

There are hardly any illiterates in the civilised countries. An effort is made to get the people into the schools. Every- thing is done to set up libraries. Over here, the Ministry of Public, what you might call, “Education” resorts to the most desperate efforts, to the most ignominious police measures to hamper the cause of education and to prevent the people from acquiring knowledge! Over here, the Ministry has destroyed school libraries!! No civilised country in the world still has any special rules against libraries, or such a foul institution as the censorship. But over here, apart from the persecution of the press in general, apart from the wild measures against libraries in general, rules which are a hundred times more restrictive are being issued against

* From here on the entry is in pencil on the back cover of the notebook. There is also this address: “Parvis St.-Grilles. Maison du Peuple. No. 15 10.00 ”.—Ed. 324 V. I. LENIN the public libraries! This is an outrageous policy of benighting the people, an outrageous policy of the landowners, who want the country to become barbaric. Some rich men, like Pavlenkov, have donated money for public libraries. Now, the wild landowners’ government has destroyed the libraries. Isn’t it about time for those who want to help education in Russia to understand that the money should be donated not for the libraries which are under the Ministry and are due to be destroyed, but for the struggle for political freedom, without which Russia is suffocating in barbarism.

Written in January 1914 First published in 1961Printed from in Vol. 24 of the Fifth Russianthe original edition of the Collected Works

THE FOURTH SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS OF THE LATVIAN TERRITORY 385 JANUARY 13 - ù6 (JANUARY ù6 - FEBRUARY 8), 1914

1 REPORT OF THE R.S.D.L.P. CENTRAL COMMITTEE AT THE FOURTH SOCIAL- DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS OF THE LATVIAN TERRITORY Lenin (representative of the Central Committee of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party). Comrade Braun said that there was no need to rummage in scrap paper, in old documents. That is right. Still, one must base oneself on documents and other evidence. A closer study of the R.S.D.L.P. activity over the last two years shows up the existence of liquidationism, which has hampered the re- establishment of the Party. Unless we make a study of the political causes of the Party split, we shall be unable to understand the present disarray. Erroneous trends were already pointed out at the 1908 Conference and later at the 1910 Plenary Meeting. On the one hand, there is otzovism, which has failed to understand the new conditions in Russia, and on the other, liquidationism, which either rejects the FOURTH S. D. CONGRESS OF LATVIAN TERRITORY 325

Party or minimises the importance of the illegal Party. These trends arose under the influence of the bourgeoisie. Liquidationism is a broad phenomenon. As early as 1906, there appeared men among the Socialist-Revolutionaries (Narodniks) who tried to legalise the Party. That is a policy of adaptation we see the Cadets pursuing. The same spirit of time-serving prevails among the Social-Democrat liquidators. A strong party can be set up only in the struggle against this liquidationism. That was already clearly stated by the 1908 Conference. After the Plenary Meeting the Party split up. The Central Committee Bureau Abroad, failing to call a Plenary Meeting, was itself subsequently wound up. The Party had to be re-established in struggle against the liquidators, and that was done by the January Conference. It adopted a decision to the effect that the liquidators had to be fought in the workers’ curia, but Comrade Braun called the decision Asiatic. However, such a decision is merely a more consistent conclusion from the resolution adopted by the Plenary Meeting. The January Conference was censured on every hand. But what was the actual situation over this January Conference? If it had in fact been nothing but a conference of splitters, the whole Party should have rallied to prove that the Conference did not represent the Party. But that did not happen. Comrade Braun said: the broad masses are not following Lenin. But serious-minded persons do not decide matters in that way; the facts must be examined to their full extent. And what do the facts indicate? The data on the results of the elections in the workers’ curia were published: at the elections to the Second Duma the Bolsheviks received 47 per cent of the votes, at the elections to the Third Duma, 50 per cent, and at the elections to the Fourth Duma, 67 per cent. These facts are incontrovertible, and prove that the decisions of the January Con- ference were correct. What the Conference decided was realised at the elections. The majority of class-conscious workers in Russia are following the Bolsheviks, and this proves that the struggle against the liquidators was necessary. Even the legal press now admits that the majority of the class-conscious workers are backing the Bolsheviks. 326 V. I. LENIN

According to Comrade Braun, the August conference386 adopted the demands he put forward: the democratic republic slogan and the need for an illegal party. Why, in that case, does Comrade Braun want to leave the Organising Committee set up by the conference? That is not evidence of political wisdom or steadfastness in political activity. Comrade Braun said that there were now only a few odd liquidators among the writers but that liquidationism as such no longer existed. But what then is the meaning of Luch attacking the illegal Party and fighting against the pro-Party men? The liquidators have failed to keep their promises to Comrade Braun: they did not support the democratic republic slogan and the need for an illegal party. The Latvians want to withdraw from the Organising Committee. That, too, shows that the August bloc was nothing but a fiction. It is ridiculous or even demagogic to talk of unity with the liquidators, until they abandon their present views and adopt views that are diametrically (completely) opposed to their present ones. There can be no unity so long as liquidationism remains what it is. Those who stand for a legal party will not unite with those who stand for an illegal one. There are now two parties, one real, the other fictitious. This fictitious party consists of a group of intellectuals whose attacks on the illegal Party merely disorganise the workers. Luch itself does not unite all the writers of the August bloc, but only the liquidators. The only thing to do about the liquidators is to fight them. “Demagogy”, “unity”, “splitters”, are only loud words and nothing more; even a parrot can mouth them. But let us look at the facts. In the course of a year, Pravda united almost 2,000 workers’ groups, and Luch, only 550. The organ which stands for the illegal Party mustered four times more supporters than the “all trend” paper. The facts show that they, the Bolsheviks, united the majority of the Russian workers. This point was also made by the conference convened in summer. Lenin is being rebuked for splitting the group. But, for a whole year, six deputies fought against liquidationism in the group. The majority is for the Bolsheviks, the Party is behind them. The group must submit to the Party majori- FOURTH S. D. CONGRESS OF LATVIAN TERRITORY 327 ty and must act together with the Party. By failing to do so they place themselves outside the Party, by the side of the Party. It is everywhere established that the group must submit to the decisions of the party. We must have the same thing in Russia as well. The deputies of the Duma are not just Social-Democratic chatterboxes, but Party workers who must submit to the Party. Everything that is behind the liquidators is fiction, phrase-mongering, name-calling. What has actually happened since the group split up? The six deputies have got 6,000 signatures, the seven, 2,000. Anyone can read about this in the press. Martov said that behind the Seven were Marxist institutions, but these are institutions which do not represent the mass of Party members, but are only a fiction. The Bolsheviks stand for unity. But who are those people who are unable to join the illegal Party? The illegal Party must be united. It must be united from below. Fighting is the only thing that can be done against those who attack the illegal Party and belittle the importance of such a party. Let’s have a guarantee that the illegal Party will remain intact, that the democratic republic slogan will not be stained—only then is unity possible at the top and at the bottom. I do not know about Asia, but in Europe splitters are those who refuse to recognise the majority. Split- ters are a minority who refuse to submit to majority decisions.

First published on May 14, 1915 Printed from the in Latvian in the newspaper newspaper text Strahdneeks No. 37 (Boston) Translated from the Latvian

2 SUMMING-UP SPEECH AT THE FOURTH SOCIAL- DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS OF THE LATVIAN TERRITORY Lenin. I am being attacked for “demagogic methods”, for splitting, etc. But what have our opponents been doing? They have always thrown dirt at the Bolsheviks. You have an example in Martov’s unseemly pamphlet.—I merely 328 V. I. LENIN expressed my opinion that the Bolsheviks would attend the conference of the International Bureau. But the decision is still up to the Central Committee, on which the workers are sitting. It is they and not Lenin that will decide this question. Those who say that there is no liquidationism, show little respect for the Congress. What liquidationism is has already been clearly stated in Party decisions since 1908. These decisions have not been revoked and they must be reckoned with. Liquidationist ideas are now being preached in the newspapers of the “August bloc”. Supporters of the Organising Committee here insist that they are not opposing the Party, but what has their paper been saying? Such examples are numerous. The conciliator An wanted to come out against the no-Party agitation, but the Editorial Board refused to change its view. There can be no union with those who stand up for the views of the newspaper Luch. It is liquidationism to work for an “open labour party”.— The conference which is being called should not be attended for the purpose of uniting with the liquidators, but for exposing them and proving that the August bloc is a fiction.— The liquidationist press has been narrowing down the slogans and curbing the revolutionary tactics. The liquidators have no illegal literature of any sort; only the Bolsheviks have such literature. The existence of Bolshevik organisations in Russia is evident from the last issue (31). The elections to the Fourth Duma have also shown that the overwhelming majority of the workers are behind the Bolsheviks. These are facts which everyone can verify. This is also evidenced by the financial support to the newspapers.— Cries about unity are not important in themselves. The ability to unite must be there. The Bolsheviks in Russia have united a majority, while the August conference; by contrast, has united nothing. Braun is pulling away from it, Trotsky is doing the same—the “August bloc” is falling apart. Buryanov, too, has not remained among the seven deputies.—To make union possible the liquidators must be condemned.

First published on July 24, 1915 Printed from the in Latvian in the newspaper newspaper text Strahdneeks No. 63 (Boston) Translated from the Latvian FOURTH S. D. CONGRESS OF LATVIAN TERRITORY 329

3 DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE ATTITUDE OF THE SOCIAL- DEMOCRATS OF THE LATVIAN TERRITORY TO THE R.S.D.L.P.

Ziemelis’s Resolution 1. There is an overriding need to unite all truly Social- Democratic forces and have strict Party unity in Russia, especially now that the working-class struggle has been steadily expanding. Such unity is possible only between Social-Democrats who in their activity recognise that: a) at the present time the R.S.D.L.P. can exist only illegally and that all Social-Democrats must join the illegal Party organisation; b) Russian Social-Democracy must conduct agitation among the masses in the spirit of the revolutionary demands of 1905, urging the workers to march in the van of the entire emancipation movement and to work for another revolution. The Congress recognises that every town must have a united Social-Democratic organisation to include workers of all nationalities and to conduct work in all the languages spoken by the local proletariat. The Congress invites Social- Democrats of all nationalities to work vigorously for real proletarian unity, a unity which is truly solid and which is organised by the workers themselves from below. 2. For the last five years, the liquidationist trend has been the central question of the internal Party struggle. As early as the All-Russia Conference of 1908, before any splits had occurred, the Party resolved that it regarded liquidationism as an attempt by a section of the Party intelligentsia to liquidate the existing R.S.D.L.P. organisation and to substitute for it an amorphous association within a legal framework, regardless of anything, even if the price to be paid were patent repudiation of the Party’s programme, tactics and traditions. At the Plenary Meeting of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Com- mittee in January 1910, at which all directions and trends in the Party were represented, liquidationism was once 330 V. I. LENIN again unanimously condemned by the whole Party as a “manifestation of bourgeois influence on the proletariat”, which was expressed in the rejection of the illegal Social- Democratic Party, the belittling of its role and importance, the attempts to curtail the programme and tactical tasks and slogans of revolutionary Social-Democracy, and so on. The attempt on the part of the conciliators to unite with the liquidators at any price (the August 1912 conference) proved to be useless, and the uniters found themselves ideologically and politically dependent on the liquidators. The Fourth Social-Democratic Congress of the Latvian Territory definitely condemns the liquidationist trend and resolves to recall its representative from the Organising Committee, which has failed to dissociate itself from the liquidators. 3.In order to conduct broad political campaigns, the Congress authorises the Central Committee to contact organisations whose political line coincides with the resolutions adopted at the Congress. 4.The Congress welcomes the initiative of the Interna- tional Socialist Bureau in raising the question of unification in Russian Social-Democracy, and authorises the Central Committee to promote this through all relevant steps, while standing up for the views expressed in this resolution.

First published in 1957 (in part)Printed from in the magazine Voprosy Istoriithe original KPSS No. 3

RESOLUTION OF THE R.S.D.L.P. CENTRAL COMMITTEE ON SETTING UP AN ORGANISATIONAL SECTION OF THE C.C. TO DIRECT ILLEGAL WORK387 In view of the conditions of secrecy, a special section of the C.C. shall be set up to provide direct guidance in illegal organisational work. REVIEW 331

General meetings of the C.C. sections shall be held only in case of emergency, with special precautions of secrecy and only by agreement between the representatives of both sections. Ordinary relations shall be conducted through individual authorised persons. The organisational section of the C.C. shall use the cover name of Workers’ Co-operative Commission. This section shall 1) direct the work of the St. Petersburg Committee, systematically helping it and restoring it in the event of arrests; 2) see that the work of all legal organisations is connected on Party lines; 3) find especially strict forms of secrecy to cover up illegal ties and undertakings; 4) unite work on the all-Russia scale, with regular contacts and visiting rounds; 5) take charge mainly of preparing a party congress for August 1914.388 The organisational section shall be appointed by the Russian collegium of the C.C. and shall consist of 3-5 persons with an equal or double number of candidates.

Written on April 2 - 4 (15- 17), 1914 First published in 1957 Printed from in the magazine Voprosy Istorii the original KPSS No. 3

REVIEW389

I. M. Kozminykh-Lanin. Overtime at Factories and Plants in Moscow Gubernia. Moscow, 1914. Price 1.00 ruble.

The recently published new statistical pamphlet by Mr. Kozminykh-Lanin examines the question of overtime, which is of exceptional importance for the Russian workers. Let us note that the statistical data given by Kozminykh- Lanin relate to the year of 1908 only and apply exclusively to workers of Moscow Gubernia. Moreover, the 1908 figures must now be largely out of date, especially in view of the fact that 1908 was a year of industrial stagnation, and that it was followed by a year of industrial upswing, and a parallel and intensified demand for manpower. This, 332 V. I. LENIN for its part, was bound to lead to greater use of overtime in a number of industries. The data given by Kozminykh-Lanin (a factory inspector in Moscow Gubernia) are undoubtedly of a semi-official character, they were collected through an inquiry among the employers, so that they should be taken with a grain of salt but must none the less be given the most serious attention. For one thing, the literature on the question is so scarce in Russia that every work must be made use of, quite apart from the fact that even these semi-official statistics yield a great deal that is highly interesting. Mr. Kozminykh-Lanin carried out his inquiry among a total of 112,380 workers in 152 enterprises of Moscow Gubernia, mainly large-scale ones, with the textile industry being prevalent in the inquiry. The figures given in the pamphlet indicate that overtime is not widely practised in the textile industry of the Moscow area. Thus, of the 59,000 workers engaged in the processing of cotton, covered by the inquiry, only 767 did overtime on holidays. Considerably greater numbers did overtime on weekdays (1,717), but even there the figure fluctuates between 1 and 2 per cent of the total. That is understandable, because technical requirements in the textile industry are such that at every given moment there must be a definite number of hands specified more or less in advance; and the main thing is that 1908 was less than favourable for the textile industry. Employers were frequently concerned in cutting back production, rather than in increasing the productivity of their enterprises through overtime. The metalworking industry, another leading branch, presents a different picture. There overtime is widely practised, Sometimes involving up to 20 per cent of the total number of workers. As for the duration of overtime, according to Kozminykh- Lanin’s data, it generally fluctuates both for metalworkers and textile workers between 25 and 35 hours per worker doing overtime (counting work on both weekdays and holidays). This is a very high figure. The 30 hours of free time on average taken up by overtime earning naturally add up entirely to so much harm done to the worker’s cultural and mental development. REVIEW 333

Let us see what workers are paid for the plunder of their labour-in terms of brains, muscles and nerves.... Mr. Kozmi- nykh-Lanin gives a very detailed calculation of the per-hour remuneration of workers for overtime in the several branches. We find that this work earns textile workers an average of only 15-16 kopeks an hour, rarely more than that. These rates are slightly increased towards April and September, and then decline again to 13 kopeks in December-February. The earnings are especially small at wool-weaving mills; thus, the average per-hour wage for March came to only 6.75 kopeks for Sunday and holiday work. If those are overtime rates, how low the ordinary ones must be! The tables show that the labour of metalworkers is not much better paid than that of textile workers; the average per-hour overtime earnings fluctuate from 13 to 20 kopeks. In general, the level and change of rates for the overtime work of Moscow metalworkers clearly show that the working conditions there are highly unfavourable even in comparison with, say, St. Petersburg. For all their overtime, Moscow workers are paid next to nothing. Thus, average monthly earnings for overtime were: Textile workers (kopeks) compulsory 408 Sundays and holidays .. ! optional 221 compulsory 353 Weekdays ...... ! optional 235

Metalworkers compulsory 337 Sundays and holidays .. ! optional 184 compulsory 325 Weekdays ...... ! optional 231

Let us emphasise in conclusion that Mr. Kozminykh- Lanin’s inquiry dealt little, if at all, with the main sphere of overtime—small-scale industry (only 1.45 per cent of the workers covered by the inquiry were engaged in undertakings employing less than 100 persons). Yet, we feel 334 V. I. LENIN sure that the examination of working conditions in small- scale industry would have produced some astounding results.

Prosveshcheniye No. 5, May 1914Printed from the Signed: I. V.Prosveshcheniye text

DECISION OF THE R.S.D.L.P. CENTRAL COMMITTEE

The C.C. expresses its gratitude to the C.C. delegation at the Brussels conference390 for its skilful and vigorous pursuit of the Party’s line. The C.C. requests the collegium of delegates to elect one representative to report at a congress or a conference of the R.S.D.L.P. in August 1914.

Written on July 5 or 6 (18 or 19), 1914 First published in 1958Printed from in the magazine Istorichesky Arkhivthe original No. 6

POLISH OPPOSITION AT THE BRUSSELS CONFERENCE391

At the Brussels conference the Polish opposition headed by Malecki went over to the liquidators. With these men deeds do not match words. Let us wait for the results of their July 3 bloc with Alexinsky, Plekhanov and the liquidators. Practice is the best test.

Written after July 5 (18), 1914 First published in 1961 Printed from in Vol. 25 of the Fifth Russian the original edition of the Collected Works PLANS FOR ARTICLE “REVOLUTION AND WAR” 335

PLANS FOR AN ARTICLE “REVOLUTION AND WAR”392

Revolution and War

I. α) July days in 1914 vs. January 1905 1. gonfalons—barricades 2. Gapon—illegal Social-Democratic organisation 3. current slogan—three pillars 4. naive attitude—persistent struggle 5. organised finale with definite slogan. !∃Kievskaya Mysl393 Russkoye Slovo.

II. Strike and armed uprising slogan (the fool L. V. in Plekhanov’s newspaper).

III. War of Austria and Serbia vs. European war.

IV. Militarism, imperialism. Guns go off themselves. Struggle against war resolution of Jaurès vs. Guesde experience of workers in Russia. Best war against war: revolution.

1. July days vs. January 9. 2. Political crisisP October M April 22 Q Rasputin famine. 3. Growth of movement and spread of slogans. 4. Discarded liquidationism and little groups abroad. 5. War of Austria and Serbia. 336 V. I. LENIN

6. Imperialism and militarism. 7. War against war. 8. World situation and tasks of proletariat in Russia.

Written between July 15 and 18 (28 and 31), 1914 First published in 1961 Printed from in Vol. 25 of the Fifth Russian the original edition of the Collected Works 337

QYQT -QYQû

ON THE SLOGAN TO TRANSFORM THE IMPERIALIST WAR INTO A CIVIL WAR394

6The only correct proletarian slogan is to transform the present imperialist war into a civil war. This transformation flows from all the objective conditions of the current military disaster, and only by systematically propagandising and agitating in that direction can the workers’ parties fulfil the obligations they undertook at Basle.395 That is the only kind of tactics that will be truly revolutionary working-class tactics, corresponding to the conditions of the new historical epoch.6

Written not earlier than September 1914 First published in 1961Printed from in Vol. 26 of the Fifth Russianthe original edition of the Collected Works

PLAN FOR A PAMPHLET THE EUROPEAN WAR AND EUROPEAN SOCIALISM396

The European War and European Socialism 1. Character of war: imperialism (as the main thing). Imperialism as the final stage in the development of capitalism. T National war: to consolidate the N national territory as a base for 2. National wars at theN the development of capitalism,

start of the bourgeoisN to sweep away the pre-capitalist

l l epoch vs.é W remnants. 338 V. I. LENIN

imperialist wars T Imperialist war: everyone already at the end of it. N finds the sinking capitalist ship N overcrowded, and tries to push N the others aside and delay the W end of capitalism. 3. Long-standing (30-40 years) diplomatic preparation of the war: its “natural” and “expected” character (and “weaned their thoughts from”: Adler at the last sitting of the International Bureau397). 4. National war (Serbia) as a by-product of present-day war. 5. Bourgeoisie’s use of national war tradition: “La patrie”,* Luzzatti. 6. “Country.” Quotation from the Communist Manifesto. Its analysis. 7. (α) The working men have no country. (β) Initially within

the framework of

l l the nationé cf. the wars of 1790-1814, 1859, 1866, 1870. India’s present war or one between China and Japan ((eventuell**)) (γ) and even then not in the bourgeois sense. (δ) Emancipation is impossible without the joint efforts of the proletarians. (ε) Collapse of national partitions. 8. Attitude to this truth: opportunists’ defence of nationalism (Jaurès in L’Armée nouvelle)....398 (H. Wendel in Neue Zeit, 1914, N 19, S. 8 4 3; for Jaurès).399 9. Vacillation in the International: defensive and offensive war or “standpoint of proletarian interest”?

* “Fatherland.”—Ed. ** Hypothetically.—Ed. THE EUROPEAN WAR AND EUROPEAN SOCIALISM 339

10. Quotations from old statements by Bebel and others, and silence about the 1912 resolution. 11. Basle Manifesto (α) quotations from Stuttgart (β) threat of civil war (1871 and 1905) (γ) “crime”. 12. “Calamities of invasion” = sophism (Kautsky).... “Tolstoyism” = idem. “Practical question: victory or defeat for one’s own country”= sophism.400 All this boils down to the question of two camps. Yes, but which two camps? Nations or classes? What do the workers lose with their country? The “eternal” in country. Country as a bourgeois state and its boundaries— country as language, territory, etc. 13. Practical attitude of socialists towards the present war: Before the war: H. Wendel in Neue Zeit, 1914, N 18.401 id. Vorwärts Leipziger Volkszeitung on war with “tsarism” id. Vorwärts.402 14. After the war: Serb invasion? p. 10 of socialists conquest? extracts 15. Russian walk-out from hall is Social- ]^not influence, cf. Fischer403 . Democrats To 15. Russians in Paris “volunteering”?? (1) Declaration by Russian socialists. (2) Declaration by Leder & Co. 404 Golos No. 9.405 Plekhanov’s stand “Sovremennoye Slovo” extracts.406 “Golos” No. 3 (September 15).407 Smirnov (Y.) and P. Maslov.408 16. French and Belgian socialists. Being strangulated? So ... be a bourgeois minister?? Vandervelde. Guesde. (Authorities?) Voting credits? 340 V. I. LENIN

What is to be done? Preach and prepare civil war. Instead of becoming ministers, join the illegal propagandists!! The chauvinism of Vaillant & Co. in L’Humanité.409 Compère-Morel about 1792410 and...... the Russians in Poland. The despicable G. Hervé and the anarcho- syndicalists.411 “Democracy”—and what about the alliance with the tsar?? 17. British socialists Hyndman and the pre-war attitude to him on the part of the German Social-Democ- ratic press.412 Keir Hardie and MacDonald. Struggle against chauvinism at home. Prussian militarism, but what about Egypt? and women in irons? Participation in recruitment. 18. German Social-Democrats. The main force. Hegemony in the International. “Of whom much will be asked”.... Haase’s speech.... Justification of war.413 Voting credits= betrayal! “Tsarism.” Sophism and falsehood!! Bourgeois lies!! Bernstein in Vorwärts about Engels (1859)....414 Engels 1890415 (contra Mehring)416 Hamburger Echo vs. Vorwärts.417 19. Bestial chauvinism vs. boring and hypocritical chauvinism. 20. R. Fischer and reply to him. 418 (Defence of violation of Belgium’s neutrality.) Sozialistische Monatshefte: moral justification of violation of Belgium’s neutrality.419 21. Two trends in German socialism. Karl Liebknecht (Golos No. 12420 and the British newspapers). THE EUROPEAN WAR AND EUROPEAN SOCIALISM 341

Bremer Bürger-Zeitung421—Mehring—Halle422 (timid protests).... 22. Collapse of the P Bremer Bürger- P On the International M Zeitung423 M col- Q Mehring Q lapse of Swiss newspapers the In- Volksrecht424 terna-

tional

N T Polemics between the French and “An International the Germans restored and freed Manifesto of the French and the from turncoats.” Belgians (International Bureau?).425 “Government’s standpoint “An International among the French” freed from turncoats” (and among the Ger- (Golos No. 12).426 mans??) 23. Putting the collapse of the International in a better light. Vandervelde and Kautsky NB 427 “Cuckoo and cock.” Südekum’s trip.428 “Both right” The interests of the “kleinmütige Freunde”??* French and the German bourgeoisie. 24. Causes of the collapse of the International: opportunism. Stuttgart 1907. Left-wing conference in Copenhagen in 1910.429 25. Opportunists’ ideas and current behaviour P from Danish reso- P M lution on opportu- M Q nism.430 Q 26. The whole International? Not!! The Serbs Keir Hardie Reply to Fischer.

* “Faint-hearted friends.”—Ed. 342 V. I. LENIN

Elements of the Third International. Authorities: Kautsky, Guesde, Vander- velde?? (attitude to authorities).... 27. Opportunism vs. Centre in the International. P Sozialistische Monatshefte. M Majority of Social-Democratic papers. P Hypocrisy P Methods used by Vorwärts M or embel- M Q Kautsky. Q lishment.) Q 28. Peace against war or “Kindly peace”—slogan of civil war against nation- petty-bourgeois radicals, pet- al war? (A peace of ty bourgeoisie (cf. Trevelyan opportunists united with & Co. in Britain431). the bourgeoisie.) cf. Frankfurter Zei- tung, extracts.432 29. Transforming national Historical character war into civil war of this transformation. 1871 1905 “Weg zur Macht”* and “striving for overthrow.” The rapidity of this transformation is one thing, the direction towards it, another. 30. Legality and Riga and St. Peters- Contra K. Kaut- illegality of burg Committee in sky & Co. on organisation. Russia (comment in “patriotism” of Russkoye Zna- workers in Rus- mya) 433 sia. Comparison Golos No. 18, column 1 with army and No. 18, column 4.434 30 bis. Vorwärts and (“W. C. Modell 70”)435 the class one should not renounce legal struggle. organisation, but should not confine oneself to it

* Way to power.”—Ed. THE EUROPEAN WAR AND EUROPEAN SOCIALISM 343 31. Volkskrieg.* Yes! But the conclusions

from this are different.

l l

l militia not at all é merely for defence. Glory to war and 42-centimetre!!436 32. Frank and “Opfertod”** ...“from the Social-Democratic standpoint”.... 3? bis. The war has revealed every weakness both of the governments and of the socialist parties. 33. The calamities of war and its consequences. Revolutionary movement—and collapse of the miserable diplomacy of the Centre. 33 bis. The reactionary aims of the war Kreuz- Y. Smirnov in Russkiye Zeitung437 and Nov- Vedomosti No. 202. oye Vremya. Nationalism in Russia. MacDonald’s “pessi- P.S.D. and S.R.s mism”?438 “Volunteering”: see §15. Growth of nationalism. Last war? 34. Direction of work: (1) No voting of credits. That voting credits= is betrayal. bugler at the front. (2) Against the chauvinists at home. (3) No stopping at legal organisation. (4) No forgetting of the Basle Manifesto on the threat of civil war. 35. Perhaps, there is another half a century of oppression before the socialist revolution, but what will our epoch leave, what will

* People’s War.—Ed. ** Sacrificing one’s life.”—Ed. 344 V. I. LENIN

be our own contribution? Scorn for the opportunists and traitors or preparation of civil war?? Martov in Golos No. 21 too early for Commune slogan: isolation from the broad popular masses!!?439

Written in September-October 1914 First published in 1930 in Printed from Lenin Miscellany XIV the original

TO THE AUTHOR OF THE SONG OF THE FALCON Every class-conscious worker will feel a pang when he sees Gorky’s signature alongside that of P. Struve under the chauvinistic-clerical protest against German barbarity.440 In a talk we once had about Chaliapin’s genuflections, Gorky said: “You can’t judge him too strictly; we artists have a different mentality.” In other words, the artist frequently acts under the influence of his emotion, which at- tains such a force that it suppresses all other considerations. Let that be so. Let us say that Chaliapin must not be strictly judged. He is an artist, and nothing more. He is a stranger to the cause of the proletariat: today, he is a friend of the workers, tomorrow, a reactionary, moved by his emotion. But the workers have grown accustomed to regard Gorky as their own. They have always believed that his heart beats as warmly as theirs for the cause of the proletariat, and that he has dedicated his talent to the service of this cause. That is why they keep sending messages of greetings to Gorky, and that is why his name is so dear to them. It is this trust on the part of the class-conscious workers that imposes on Gorky a certain duty—to cherish his good name and to refrain from putting his signature to all sorts of cheap chauvinist protests which could well confuse the workers who lack political consciousness. They are still unable to find their bearings in many situations, and could be led astray by Gorky’s name. Struve’s name will not confuse any worker, but Gorky’s may. EDITORIAL NOTE 345

Therefore, the class-conscious workers, who well realise the falsehood and the vulgarity of this hypocritical protest against the “German barbarians”, must feel that they have to rebuke the author of The Song of the Falcon. They will- tell him: “At this hard and responsible moment through which the proletariat of Russia is going, we expected you to go hand in hand with its leading fighters and not with Mr. Struve & Co.!”

Sotsial-Demokrat No. 34, Printed from the December 5 , 1914 Sotsial-Demokrat

EDITORIAL NOTE TO THE ARTICLE “THE UKRAINE AND THE WAR”

From the Editors The above article has been written by a prominent supporter of the Dzvin trend.441 Just recently, we have had to engage in some sharp polemics with that trend. We still have some differences with its writers. We do not regard as correct the concessions they have made to nationalism; we believe the idea of “cultural-national autonomy” to be bourgeois nationalism; we do not think that the best way to organise the proletariat is to break it up into national curias, and we do not share their views of the distinc- tions between “anational”, national and international. Being advocates of consistent internationalism, we entertain the hope that the author of this article and his friends will learn the necessary lessons from the events of the European war. At any rate, we are happy to note that precisely at this hard moment the said group of Ukrainian leaders are most aware of their propinquity with Sotsial-Demokrat. It is to their credit that they have succeeded in separating themselves from the notorious “Alliance for the Liberation of the Ukraine”,442 whose activity has nothing in common with Social-Democracy.

Sotsial-Demokrat No. 38, Printed from the February 12, 1915 Sotsial-Demokrat text 346 V. I. LENIN

DRAFT POINT THREE OF THE RESOLUTION “THE C.O. AND THE NEW PAPER”, ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. SECTIONS ABROAD443 3.Expressing full sympathy with the idea of further increasing the frequency of the C.O.’s publication, and establishing a popular daily under the C.O. Editorial Board, the conference considers it possible to start the new publication after the main task—the correct organisation of the C.O.—has been secured. The conference urges all comrades abroad to start working vigorously at once in that direction, calling especially for more systematic support of the C.O. with literary material in connection with the organisation of contributors’ conferences, etc.

Written between February 14 and 19 (February 27 and March 4), 1915 Published in 1915 in a hectographedPrinted from leaflet, “Konferentsia zagranichnykhthe original organizaysii R.S.D.R.P.” (Conference of R.S.D.L.P. Organisations Abroad)

DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST WOMEN’S CONFERENCE 444

Resolution Motioned by the C.C. Delegation The current world war, which is the cause of so much distress wherever it has broken out, which has devastated and ruined Belgium and Galicia, and which has ruined the lives of thousands upon thousands of workers—this war is an imperialist one, caused by the struggle between the ruling classes of various countries for a division of the colonies and domination of the world market, and by dynastic interests. It is a natural continuation of the policy conducted by the class of capitalists and the governments of all count- INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST WOMEN’S CONFERENCE 347 ries; and that is why the question of who struck out first is altogether irrelevant from the socialist standpoint. This war, far from serving any interests of the workers, is in fact a weapon in the hands of the ruling classes for disrupting the international solidarity of the workers and weakening their movement and class struggle in each country. Similarly, the “defend your country” watchword, put forward by the bourgeoisie and supported by the opportunists, is nothing but a bait to which the bourgeoisie hopes the proletariat will rise and be induced to give their life and blood for its interests. In view of all this, the Extraordinary International Socialist Women’s Conference, on the strength of the Stutt- gart resolution, which recommends the use of the economic and political crisis, brought about by the war, for rousing the people to accelerate the collapse of the capitalist system, on the strength of the Copenhagen resolution, which says that it is the duty of deputies to vote against war credits, and of the Basle resolution, which says that the workers consider it a crime to shoot down each other—declares that the representatives of most of the socialist parties of the belligerent countries acted in complete discord with these resolutions and, succumbing to the pressure of circumstances, committed a real betrayal in respect of socialism, sup- planting it with nationalism; it insists that the proletarians of all countries have no enemy other than their class enemy—the class of capitalists. The horrible suffering caused by this war awakens in all women, especially proletarian women, a growing desire for peace. Declaring war on all imperialist war, the conference at the same time believes that if this desire for peace is to be transformed into a conscious political force, working women must well realise that the propertied classes are striving for nothing but annexations, conquest and domination, that in the epoch of imperialism wars are inevitable, and that imperialism threatens the world with a series of wars, unless the proletariat musters enough strength to put an end to the capitalist system by the final overthrow of capitalism. Every working woman who wants to shorten the period of suffering connected with the epoch of imperialist wars, must strive to have her urge for peace develop into indig- 348 V. I. LENIN nation and struggle for socialism. The working woman will attain her aim in this struggle only through a revolutionary mass movement, and a strengthening and sharpening of the socialist struggle. Consequently, her first duty is to support the trade union and socialist organisations and break the civil peace by fighting against the war credits, against entry into bourgeois ministries, by supporting and spreading the idea of soldiers’ fraternisation in the trenches on the field of battle, by setting up illegal organisations wherever the government has abolished the constitutional freedoms, and finally, by drawing the mass into manifestations and revolutionary movements. The International Socialist Women’s Conference calls on the working women of all countries to start this struggle right away, organising it on an international scale, and closely tying in their work with that of the socialists of all countries who, like Liebknecht, are fighting against nationalism and waging a revolutionary socialist struggle. At the same time, the conference gives working women a reminder that in the most advanced countries of Europe the objective conditions for socialist production are already there, that the whole movement is entering a new phase, that the current world war imposes fresh and serious duties upon them, and that their movement may be the forerunner of a general mass action which could give fresh scope to the whole socialist movement and advance the hour of final emancipation. By taking the initiative in staging demonstrations and revolutionary manifestations, working women, marching hand in hand with the proletarians, could usher in a new era of proletarian struggle in the course of which the proletariat will win socialism in the more advanced countries, and a democratic republic in the more backward ones.

Supplement to Sotsial-Democrat Printed from the No. 42, June 1, 1915 text of the Supplement INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONFERENCE AT ZIMMERWALD 349

THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONFERENCE AT ZIMMERWALD445 AUGUST ù3 - ù6 (SEPTEMBER 5 - 8), 1915

1 VARIANT OF THE DRAFT RESOLUTION OF LEFT-WING SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS FOR THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONFERENCE

Draft The present war springs from imperialism, i.e., the highest stage of capitalism, when the development of the productive forces and the growth of capital have gone beyond the narrow framework of separate national states, and induce the “great” powers to try to enslave other nations and seize colonies as sources of raw materials and areas for the export of capital. The objective conditions are quite ripe for socialism and the great powers are fighting the current war in an effort artificially to delay the collapse of capitalism, by preserving and intensifying the dependence of colonies, by seizing privileges on the world market, and by splitting and sup- pressing the international revolutionary struggle of the workers. Social-Democrats fully recognise the necessity of freedom for all nations. In the epoch of struggle against feudalism, absolutism and foreign national oppression, they recognised defence of one’s country—today they recognise as just the war waged by the oppressed nations (especially colonies) against their oppressors, the “great” powers. But the current war between the great powers is a war between slave-owners to intensify and consolidate slavery, for a redivision of the colonies, for the “right” to oppress other nations, for the privileges of great-power capital and for the reactionary suppression of the working-class movement. That is why talk about “defence of one’s country” on the part of both belligerent groups of powers is a bourgeois swindle of the people. Neither the victory by any of the present governments, nor the status quo ante bellum 350 V. I. LENIN can safeguard the freedom of nations from the imperialist great powers, nor can it give the possibility of a decent life to the working class, which is being increasingly weighed down by the high cost of living, the trusts, militarism and its attendant political reaction, even in the freest countries. The real meaning of the “defend your country” slogan in this war is defence of the great-power privileges and advantages, defence of the “right” of the given bourgeoisie to oppress other nations, it is a national-liberal labour policy, an alliance between a small section of the workers and their “own” national bourgeoisie against the mass of proletarians and the exploited. Socialists conducting such a policy are in fact chauvinists—social-chauvinists. The policy of voting for war credits, entering ministries, Burgfrieden,* etc., is a policy of opportunism and betrayal of socialism. The working class cannot attain its great aim of labour emancipation, without carrying on a resolute struggle against opportunism and social-chauvinism. The Basle Manifesto of 1912, adopted unanimously in anticipation of precisely the kind of war between the great powers which has in fact come about, definitely recognised the reactionary and imperialist character of the war, and clearly announced the approach of a proletarian revolution in connection with such a war. In effect, the war has created a revolutionary situation, and has generated revolutionary sentiments and discontent. It is the task of Social-Democrats to maintain and develop these, help to clear the revolutionary awareness of the masses and purge their minds of the falsehood of bourgeois and socialist chauvinism, promote every effort at revolutionary mass struggle against imperialism, for socialism, and to work to transform the imperialist war into a civil war for socialism. To intensify their revolutionary agitation, Social-Demo- crats must make use of the growing massive desire for peace, which expresses the disappointment of the masses and the clearing of their revolutionary consciousness. But in so doing, Social-Democrats should not deceive the people by holding out hopes for any kind of stable democratic

* Peace at home.—Ed. INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONFERENCE AT ZIMMERWALD 351 peace, that would rule out the oppression of nations, and that would come soon and without the revolutionary overthrow of the present governments.

Written before July 13 (26), 1915 First published in 1937 in Printed from Lenin Miscellany XXX the original

2 THESES FOR A REPORT AT A MEETING OF LEFT-WING SOCIAL- DEMOCRATS446 Theses: 1. Fact of the war and the consequences. Overall picture. 2. Imperialist character 1) colonial plunder 2) oppression of nations 3) division of the world. 3. Bringing out the aim. 4. Falsification of its character a) emancipation of peoples —oppression b) democracy —despotism (reaction?) c) culture —barbarous war d) welfare —social reforms e) capitalist income —high cost of living! 5. Capitalism (Trotsky). (Break-up of the bourgeois world).... 6. At the height of the crisis of capitalism; which (crisis) dooms the proletariat to the greatest sacrifices it is urged to defend capitalism, there are demands for civil peace. 7. Struggle against war.... 8. Decisions of congresses.... 9. Official parties—against these decisions P voting credits P M entry into ministries M Defence of Q for bloc Q one’s country. 10. Struggle of minorities (and parties) against the war. 11. Return of the working class to its task. 12. I.S.B. 13. Meeting at Berne.447 (Links created.) 352 V. I. LENIN

14. Banner of class struggle. 15. a) action by belligerent countries.... b) action by neutral countries.... 16. International scale. 17. Terms of peace. 18. Appeal.

Written between August 19 and 23 (September 1 and 5 ), 1915 First published in 1962 Printed from the in Vol. 27 of the Fifth Russian original edition of the Collected Works Translated from the French and the German

3 PLAN FOR A SPEECH AT THE ZIMMERWALD CONFERENCE 1) Imperialism and plunder 2) Diverting the attention of the revolutionary proletariat and weakening its movement... 3) Exposure of bourgeois sophisms —one group —another 4) Devoir socialiste...* 5) Quote bottom 5. page 5 top— 7. page 5 top 1 6) German Social-Democrats cannot plead struggle against tsarism 7) Our press has been rebuking us over the German leaders’ behaviour

8) Quote, p. 8, end from the word Même 2 page 9) Russian S.D. remplit son devoir** by its vote and illegal proclamation 10) It is harmful to cover up the bankruptcy of the Second Interna-

* Socialist duty.—Ed. ** Has done its duty.—Ed. INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONFERENCE AT ZIMMERWALD 353

tional; the Centre is especially harmful 11) This bankruptcy is the bankruptcy of opportunism page 11 1 12) Chauvinism in Russia, including a section of the Social-Democrats 13) Defeat of tsarism—the lesser evil 14) Illegal organisation and agitation quote (end of 15 and 16) 1

Written between August 23 and 26 (September 5 and 8 ), 1915 First published in 1962 Printed from in Vol. 27 of the Fifth Russian the original edition of the Collected Works

4 SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE MANIFESTO AND THE DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE WAR AND THE TASKS OF SOCIAL- DEMOCRACY AUGUST 25 (SEPTEMBER 7)

1 It was inevitable that things here should have come to a struggle of opinion between Ledebour and us.448 However, I must protest against the method used here by Ledebour in attacking Radek. The assertion that our manifesto has been signed only by men who are safe is inadmissible. It has also been signed by the Latvian delegates and Borchardt. Another old and hackneyed argument is saying that one should not call the masses to revolutionary action unless one is able to take a direct part in it oneself. Further- more, I deny that there should be no mention of the means of struggle. That has occurred in all revolutionary periods The means should be made known to the masses so that they could be explained and discussed. We in Russia have always acted in this way; in fact, the interpretation of the means of struggle had been the subject of arguments between Plekhanov and myself even in the pro-revolutionary years. When the objective historical situation of 1847 confronted 354 V. I. LENIN

Germany with revolution, Marx and Engels sent out an appeal from London calling for violence.449 The German movement is faced with a decision. If we are indeed on the threshold of a revolutionary epoch in which the masses will go over to revolutionary struggle, we must also make mention of the means necessary for this struggle. According to the revisionist view taken by David and others, that is naturally something quite useless: after all, they do not believe that we are on the eve of a revolutionary epoch. We who believe this must act otherwise. You cannot make revolution without explaining revolutionary tactics. It was precisely the worst feature of the Second International that it constantly avoided explanations; and it is that which the Dutch Tribune-Marxists450 quite correctly called the German Centre is “passive revolutionary attitude”. Now on the question of persecutions. You in Germany should in general do more than legal work, if you want real action. You must combine legal and illegal activity. The old methods are no longer adequate to the new situation. You yourselves have said: we are going forward to an epoch of great class battles. In that case, you must also have the means for this. And it is not at all necessary for the manifesto to be signed, it could well be issued without signatures. At any rate, you should not act semi-legally, like Clara Zetkin, for instance. That calls for too much sacrifice. Here is how things stand: either a truly revolutionary struggle or mere empty talk which will help no one but the deserters, against whom Liebknecht speaks out so sharply in this letter.451 Coming out for peace does not mean much in itself. David also writes: we are not for the war, but only against defeat. Everyone wants peace. Taking account of the new situation, we should use new and specific means of struggle which should not be similar in any way to the old German or Russian methods.

2 I do not agree with Serrati that the resolution will appear either too early or too late.452 After this war, other, mainly colonial, wars will be waged. Unless the proletariat turns off the social-imperialist way, proletarian solidarity will GERMAN S. D. & RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION 355 be completely destroyed; that is why we must determine common tactics. If we adopt only a manifesto, Vandervelde, L’Humanité and others will once again start deceiving the masses; they will keep saying that they, too, oppose war and want peace. The old vagueness will remain. First published in 1965Printed from in Vol. 54 of the Fifth Russianthe minutes of the edition of the Collected Worksconference Translated from the French and the German

5 ADDENDA TO THE STATEMENT BY THE ZIMMERWALD LEFT 453 No. 1.noch die wichtigste Frage des Opportunismus berührt, noch die besonders schädliche Rolle des s.-d. Zentrums aufdeckt.* No. 2.We vote for, in particular, because two French comrades have put forward an important consideration. It is they who have pointed to the exceptionally oppressed condition of the workers in France, their extreme corruption by revolutionary phrase-mongering, and the need for a slow and cautious transition to resolute tactics. But in Europe as a whole it is opportunism that is the enemy of the working- class movement. Written on August 26 (September 8), 1915 First published in 1930 inPrinted from Lenin Miscellany XIVthe original

GERMAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY AND THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION454 German Social-Democracy was the strongest and most influential party of the Second International. That is why, on the one hand, it bears the greatest responsibility for its

* Neither touches on the highly important question of opportunism, nor exposes the exceptionally harmful role of the S.D. Centre.—Ed. 356 V. I. LENIN collapse, and on the other, its example and experience are most important for studying the reasons of this collapse and for analysing the measures, ways and means for fighting the opportunism which has strangulated that party. The opportunism which has strangulated the Social- Democratic Party of Germany and has transformed that party into a national-liberal labour party, has crystallised as social-chauvinism in the 1914-15 war.

Written in 1915 First published in 1937 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXX the original

AMENDMENTS AND ADDENDA TO THE APPEAL “TO ALL AFFILIATED PARTIES AND GROUPS”, ADOPTED BY A CONFERENCE OF THE ENLARGED INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST COMMISSION Änderungsvorschläge*: 1. Give a more precise and definite statement of the political-class significance and the basic incorrectness of the tactics of the “official parties” and “the Second Inter- national” . . . P (a) defence of country=defence of imperialist bour- N geoisie, its plunder and oppression of nations M (b) connection with opportunism N (c) alliance with the bourgeoisie at home against the Q international proletariat. 2. Definition of “Bruch des Burgfriedens”. ** Non-participation in any institution directly or indirectly supporting the war. αβ & Unterjochung der Nationen.*** &Greetings to Lieb- Delete the end about “In der Aera”....**** knecht and Rühle.

* Proposals on amendments.—Ed. ** “Breakdown of civil peace.”—Ed. *** Subjugation of nations.—Ed. **** “In the course of the era”....—Ed. AMENDMENTS AND ADDENDA TO I.S.C. APPEAL 357

3. Nicht nur “geeignete”, sondern illegale Literatur, das heisst freie, nicht der Zensur unterordnete*.

γ ohne zu sagen, dass die Niederwerfung dieser Regierung dazu nötig** & 4. Strikes (economic and political) and demonstrations. 5. & bis zur Revolution.*** 6. & Quotes not only from the Stuttgart resolution, but also from the Basle resolution: it is a crime to shoot the Commune, 1905.

Written between January 23 and 27 (February 5 and 9), 1916 First published in 1962 Printed from in Vol. 27 of the Fifth Russian the original edition of the Collected Works

* Not only “adapted”, but also illegal literature, i.e., free literature, not subjected to censorship.—Ed. ** Without saying that it calls for the overthrow of this government.—Ed. *** All the way to the revolution.—Ed. 358 V. I. LENIN

PLAN FOR A LECTURE ON

? Internationals rpt. 1. Subject: not an assessment of the war (> 1 year ago and outdated), but (two) basic lines in the development of the working-class movement and socialism. Alias: not an assessment of the war or tactical principles, but an assessment of the course the working-class movement has taken. Accordingly, the main thing: facts (on a broad scale) of the working-class movement and socialism, and comparison of various countries. 2. Introduction. Huysmans in Arnhem and in Rotterdam vs. Wijnkoop et Henriette Roland-Holst in Ber- ner Tagwacht.456

?&cf. Avanti! (February 12, 1916)?457 Vorwärts*

2a. Etwa: 1. Russia: Patriots —O.C. and Trotsky — (Plekhanov & Co.) (Nashe Slovo) 2. Germany: Majority —K. Kautsky & Co. — 3. France: Majority —Longuet & Co. —

4. Britain: Majority (Fabian Society, Labour Party,459

* The word Vorwärts appears to have been pencilled in later.—Ed. PLAN FOR LECTURE ON “TWO INTERNATIONALS” 359

“TWO INTERNATIONALS” 455

Subject: You might say the world working- class and socialist movement as the touchstone of theory.

NB: In the O. C. : (1) blaming the workers; (2) forgetting the ties with the liquidators.

—C. C. —minority. I. S. D.* —(Rühle)—Winnig —Bourderon & Co. Bourderon’s Reports in “La- resolution bour Leader”458 Hyndman)—Askew (?)—Forward.460 Glasgow NB: “Merthyr”461 NB Socialist462 Ornatsky in break with Letters in !∃Nashe ] the Labour ^ Labour Slovo463 Party Leader ——— ———

* Internationale Sozialisten Deutschlands.—Ed. 360 V. I. LENIN

5. Italy: Minority (Bissolati)— 6. Austria: Majority (Pernerstorfer)

7. America: Russel —(Hillquit) 8. Australia. Majority (government party)

3. Russia. Elections to War Industries Committees. First elections to C. C. (&the vacillating) & defencist bloc (Larin). Indignation of the bourgeoisie and the government. Gvozdev’s denunciation. Second elections. Victory of chauvinists. Nashe Dyelo466 & Nash Golos467 & Rabocheye Utro468 O. C. Trotsky and Nashe Slovo (Chkheidze group?) C. C.

Martov’s evolution: from “Vorwärts is dead” and “we will not go into the International”—to defence of alliance with Nashe Dyelo (Boretsky).

This may well be brilliant “diplomacy”, but there is not a bit of socialism in it. Result: two lines in the working-class movement in Russia. Only two (the rest has passed away). Their class basis: (α) in alliance with domestic bourgeoisie = (β) in alliance with international proletariat = Their ideas: for “defence” (“defence of country”); (“defencists”); against “defence of country”... (cf. Zimmerwald Manifesto)* 4. Germany. Struggle within group: Liebknecht und Rühle 2 and ?0 (their inconsistency).471

* Points 2 and 3 are crossed out in pencil in the MS.—Ed. PLAN FOR LECTURE ON “TWO INTERNATIONALS” 361

Italian official party. (Avanti! Feb. 12, 1916) report in Adler minority. — — ]^ Berner Tagwacht 464 ——— Debs (Debs’ s articles465) “bombs and ———— ]^dollars” — ? —— socialists.

“. . . Not for defence, but for organisation . . . .”

Social- chauvinist mockery of Martov (Boretsky in Nashe Slovo).

Stolypin : N B “Khvostov labour party,469

= for strengthening “domestic” bourgeoisie (= for war) = for international proletarian revolution.

& “Europa und die Revolution” in here?470 !∃Fall Liebknecht* pamphlet “regeneration” “national-liberal party”.

* The Liebknecht Case.—Ed. 362 V. I. LENIN

Borchardt and Lichtstrahlen472 Winnig. Rühle and reply of Vorwärts (Analysis).473 (α) Circulation of illegal literature and !∃illegal organisation. (β) Helping the government.

5. France. (1) Vaillant in L’Humanité (letters?)475 (“stopped their ears with blood-soaked cotton wool”, “doctrinaires”, etc., etc.) PP (2) Merrheim’s words at Zimmerwald: PP MM “le parti, le gouvernement et les MM QQ Jouhaux ne sont que trois têtes QQ sous un bonnet”.* (3) Bourderon’s resolution ((analysis of its text)). (4) Report in Labour Leader on the split.

6. Britain. Majority (participation in ministry) defence. The New Statesman477 (and its attitude) (Labour Party&Fabian Society). contra—B. S. P., where i are internationalists Glasgow Socialist ((statement at Zimmerwald478)) Letters in Labour Leader. Article on betrayal. Merthyr.

7. Italy. Bissolati—party (Treves and his speech480) P Italy: Bissolati and the labour party P ** M Bulgaria: Tesnyaki481 and Shiroki M Q Sweden: Branting and Höglund Q Holland: Troelstra and Tribune.482

* “The party, the government and the Jouhaux are nothing but three heads under one cap.”—Ed. ** Point 7 is crossed out in pencil in the MS.—Ed. PLAN FOR LECTURE ON “TWO INTERNATIONALS” 363

Demonstration in Brunswick.474 (Strike in Hannover.)

Saumoneau’s leaflet.476

(Brizon & Co. at Kienthal).*

Lloyd George in Glasgow and workers’ reply.

British Socialist Party (Hyndman’s walk-out 479)**.

* The text from the word “regeneration” to the words “(Brizon & Co. at Kienthal)” is in pencil and appears to have been written later.— Ed. ** The text was apparently pencilled in later.—Ed. 364 V. I. LENIN

8. Austria. Pernerstorfer in Neue Zeit483 —V. Adler—internationalists... ! resolution idem: of V. Adler and “15”.* 9. United States of North America. (“Wait and see”....) Russel (V. Berger & Co.) for “preparedness”. “Jingo” Hillquit = diplomat** Debs and his articles. 10. Australia. Report in Berner Tagwacht.484 Article in New Statesman (I. K.485)*** 11. Results. !! K. Kautsky in a letter to Bukvoyed....PP “There are PP id. in Neue Zeit many times.MM no two MM Falsehood and lies. QQ directions” QQ K. Kautsky in Breitscheid report (“either the old International or half a dozen”). Two and only two. Throughout the world.

] Montagne and Gironde (Plekhanov in Iskra No. 2, 1901, “On the Threshold of the 20th Century”). ] “Boys with $2” and with capitalist “brains” in Appeal to Reason.486 Not diplomatic cover-up (“St. Petersburg slush”— Kautskian Vaut mieux dire****). but explanation to the masses. Inevitability of split. * Apparently pencilled in later.—Ed. ** The text from the word “Jingo” to the word “diplomat” is crossed out in pencil.—Ed. *** The text from the word “article” to “(I. K.)” was apparently pencilled in later.—Ed. **** Better to say.—Ed. PLAN FOR LECTURE ON “TWO INTERNATIONALS” 365

Diplomacy—hypocrisy—vacillation—delusion? PP It is not the word that matters. NN Axelrod and Martov in Russia P NN K. Kautsky and Haase in Germany N N MM Longuet et in France one NN M ∃ Pressemane N type NN Hillquit in America N QQ Askew and others in Britain Q ΣΣ = Huysmans.*

* The text from the word “diplomacy” to the word “Huysmans” is crossed out in pencil.—Ed. 366 V. I. LENIN

Revolution cf. L’information * ] &Europa und die Revolution ^ Iskra No. 2 (1901): Montagne and Gironde. Struggle againstP Bernstein. P opportunismM Millerandism and Jaurèsism. M British liberal labour policy. Q Split in a number of countries. Q The war has accelerated the development — — of the break-up both ways. Quid est Kienthal?** Written between January 30 and February 4 (February 12 and 17), 1916 First published in 1962 Printed from in Vol. 27 of the Fifth Russian the original edition of the Collected Works

NOTE TO THE THESES “SOCIALIST REVOLUTION AND THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION” There is some similarity between the way mankind should arrive at the abolition of classes and the way it should subsequently arrive at the fusion of nations. Thus, only a transition stage of dictatorship by the oppressed class leads to the abolition of classes, only the liberation of the oppressed nations and real eradication of national oppression leads to the fusion of nations, and the political criterion of the feasibility of this lies precisely in the freedom to secede. Freedom to secede is the best and the only political means against the idiotic system of petty states and national isolation which, to mankind’s good fortune, is being inexorably destroyed by the whole course of capitalist development. Written in January-February 1916 First published in 1937 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXX the original Translated from the German

* The text from the word “boys” to the word “revolution” is crossed out in pencil.—Ed. ** What is Kienthal? The text from the words “Iskra No. 2” to the end appears to have been pencilled in later.—Ed. DRAFT RESOLUTION OF R.S.D.L.P. CENTRAL COMMITTEE 367

DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE R.S.D.L.P. CENTRAL COMMITTEE TO TERMINATE PUBLICATION OF THE JOURNAL KOMMUNIST487 Not for the press: Taking into consideration (1) that Kommunist was founded—temporarily and as an experiment—by a federated editorial board, when there had been no sign of any difference on any substantial question between the C.O. Editorial Board and the rest of the Editorial Board as a whole; (2) that after No. 1-2 of “Kommunist” three members of the Editorial Board put forward such differences in their signed theses on the question of self-determination; (3) that an exchange of opinion on this question revealed deep divergence over the assessment of the role of democratic demands and the minimum programme in general;— —the C.C. resolves: to recognise the continuation of the journal Kommunist as impossible and to declare that this publication is hereby terminated.— Furthermore. With a view to extending the discussion on the controversial questions and to having them clarified before a broader circle of leading comrades, the C.C. resolves: to request the three comrades who have signed the theses to draw up a motivated statement of their differences with the C.O. Editorial Board. This statement together with a reply by the C.O. Editorial Board shall be communicated to a broader circle of leading Party workers for a final decision on whether it is desirable and necessary to open a debate in the press.488 I very much regret that you are dragging out this “terribly boring” business. I repeat—I, too, am terribly bored with having to repeat—that I must decline to take part in Kommunist. Your plan lacks principle and tends to confound the confusion. If there are no profound differences of principle, the submission to the C.C. is either slander or intrigue, and you will be exposed by every worker in Russia. If there are, as much must be said: after No. 1-2 people have begun to confuse things outrageously; we 368 V. I. LENIN decline responsibility; we believe it to be our duty not to encourage but to expose. As a concession we invite (see leaflet) them to have another discussion before an “enlarged circle” (so as not to shame them in the press; not to kill them outright by polemics). {That is the only reason.} For Sbornik Sotsial- Demokrata489 we have, apart from a number of our articles,* Varin & Alexander & reports & indictment (I have not yet received it) & Safa- rov & Latvian & Kollontai (probably). The Japanese490 should be invited only to be shamed; Bukharin—only order material on the economic question. Radek should not be invited (his article is legal and is not at all important in this shape). We shall have to fight against his theses. Here is my opinion. Kommunist is a corpse and I am not taking part in reviving it. Alexander (and the Russian workers in the Bureau) should confront them with this question of principle: we do not take on the Editorial Board people who confuse things outrageously and refuse to learn, who do not even wish to make an effort to set forth their opinion. They want to play us off against the P.S.D., that much is clear, while they themselves are safe on the sidelines. Kommunist met the task of that period: to rally everyone against social-chauvinism and Kautskyism. The task now is different: we are faced with a struggle against “imperialist Economism”. Salut, Lenin P.S. Why did you not reply whether or not Sukhanov was sent to Geneva? I send you material for Grimm. No luck with translation of the theses.

Written after March 28 (April 10), 1916 First published in 1962 Printed from in Vol. 27 of the Fifth Russian the original edition of the Collected Works

* There will be enough “writers” for two collections! INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONFERENCE AT KIENTHAL 369

THE SECON DINTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONFERENCE AT KIENTHAL 491 APRIL 11 - 1û (ù4 - 30), 1916

1 INITIAL VARIANT OF THE R.S.D.L.P. CENTRAL COMMITTEE PROPOSAL Proposal from the R.S.D.L.P. C.C. to the Second Socialist Conference Called by the I.S.C. (Berne)*492 (Theses on Points 5, 6, 7a and 7b and 8 of the Agenda) In announcing the convocation of the Second Internation- al Socialist Conference, the I.S.C. published the following key points of the agenda: P 5.“struggle to end the war” N 6.“problem of peace” M 7a.parliamentary “action“agitation and N 7b.mass”∃∃∃propaganda” Q 8.International Socialist Bureau. The I.S.C. has invited the organisations to discuss these questions and to send in their proposals. Here is the reply of our Party C.C. to the invitation: 1.Just as all war is but a continuation by violent means of the politics which the belligerent states and their ruling classes had been conducting for many years, sometimes for decades, before the outbreak of the war, so the peace that ends any war can be nothing but a consideration and a record of the actual changes brought about in the relations of forces as a result of the given war. 2.It is therefore the greatest absurdity and stupidity, from the standpoint of theory, and from the standpoint of socialist doctrine, and the greatest fraud on the working class in practice, to engage in talk about assessing the present war on the strength of “simple” concepts of defence and attack and about assessing the future peace on the strength of “simple” pious wishes for a stable, democratic, honourable, etc., peace. 3.This war is an imperialist war, i.e., a war resulting

*See present edition, Vol. 22, pp. 169-79.—Ed. 370 V. I. LENIN from contradictions on the basis of a highly developed monopoly capitalism which is ripe for transition to socialism. This war is being fought for world hegemony, i.e., for fresh oppression of the weak nations, for another division of the world, for a division of the colonies, spheres of influence, etc.—a division under which the old plundering powers, Britain, France and Russia, would give up a share of their booty to Germany, a young and stronger plundering power. 4. That is why, unless the proletarian revolution over- throws the present governments and the present ruling classes of the belligerent “great” powers, there is absolutely no chance of a n y peace other than a more or less short- term armistice between the imperialist powers, a peace accompanied by a growth of reaction within the states, a growth of national oppression and enslavement of the weak nations, a growth of inflammable material preparatory for new wars, etc. For the fact is that from the objective content of the politics which has been bred by the entire epoch of imperialism and which the bourgeoisie of all the belligerent “great” powers had conducted before this war and is conducting during i t, inevitably flows a peace resting on a new and even worse oppression of nations, etc. 5. To arouse in the masses of people ideas or hopes of the possibility of a stable or democratic, etc., peace between the present governments and the present ruling classes (i.e., the bourgeoisie allied with the landowners), as most of the official socialist parties are doing, is not only shame- lessly to cheat the people but to lull them and distract them from the revolutionary struggle, which is already starting in the form of the strike and demonstration movement. 6. It is precisely this kind of cheating the people and distracting the proletariat from the revolutionary struggle that characterises the “peace programme” which is now being “unanimously” put forward both by the official spokesman of the Second International Huysmans at the Congress of the Sozialdemokratische Arbeiter Partei of Holland at Arnhem, and by Kautsky, the most influential theorist of the Second International and the most influential advocate of the social-patriots and social-chauvinists in all countries. Their programme consists in hypocritical INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONFERENCE AT KIENTHAL 371 lip service to some democratic pious wishes: repudiation of annexations and indemnities, self-determination of nations, democratisation of foreign policy, arbitration courts to settle conflicts between states, disarmament, a United States of Europe, etc. 7. The best evidence that this “peace programme” is downright hypocrisy is, on the one hand, the lip service paid to it by a number of bourgeois pacifists and demagogic ministers of the belligerent countries, and, on the other, its duplication by notorious (notorisch) chauvinists at the conferences of “socialists” of one group of belligerent powers in London (February 1915)493 and of the other in Vienna (April 1915).494 FROM It is the “socialists” MARX who have entered the bourgeois ministries carrying on the plunderous war, who have voted for TO the war MAO credits, who have helped the war by participating in various organisations and institutions, etc., it is they who are actually conducting the policy of safeguarding the old and new annexations, colonial oppression, etc., that have proclaimed to the world their “peace programme”, consisting in a repudiation of annexations, etc. 8. Kautsky, the leading authority of the Second Inter- national, declared to the whole world on May 21, 1915 (Neue Zeit) that this accord and “unanimity” of “socialists” in London* and in NOTVienna over FOR the principle of “independence” or self-determination of nations is proof of the “unanimity” and “viability” of the Second International in the “peace programme”.COMMERCIAL This defence and sanction of the most crying and most brazen hypocrisy and deception of the workers is notDISTRIBUTION in any sense a coincidence, but a systematic policy which is being conducted in a number of countries by men who pretend to be internationalists but are actually making the imperialist war more attractive by applying to it the idea of “defence of one’s country” and consolidating the domination of the working-class movement by the social-chauvinists, who have betrayed socialism, by preaching “unity” with them. This policy, which is the most harmful and dangerous one for the working class, is being conducted by Kautsky, Haase and others in Germany,

* An inadvertent mistake in the MS., which says “Copenhagen”.— Ed. 372 V. I. LENIN

Longuet, Pressemane and others in France, most of the leaders in Britain, Axelrod, Martov, Chkheidze & Co. in Russia, Trèves and others in Italy (see the threat of the Central Organ of the Italian Party, Avanti!, on March 5, 1916, to expose Trèves and other reformist-possibilists495 as to “who resorted to every means to prevent the Party Executive and Oddino Morgari from taking action to secure unity at Zimmerwald and to create a new International”). This world-wide policy, which is of the utmost danger to the working class, could be called a Kautskian policy, after its most authoritative spokesman. 9. Socialists cannot refuse to fight for reform. They must vote everywhere, including the parliaments, by the way, for all, even the slightest, improvements in the condition of the masses, such as increased relief for the inhabitants of the devastated areas, lessening of national oppression, etc. But on the basis of the present war and the peace flowing from it, this kind of reformist activity to improve the condition of the masses is apparently possible only on a miniature scale. It would be a crying deception of the masses to suggest to them, whether directly or indirectly, the idea that the questions raised by the present war could have a reformist solution. For this war has created a revolutionary situation in Europe, bringing to the fore the most fundamental problems of imperialism, which will inevitably have an imperialist solution, except where the present governments and ruling classes of Europe are overthrown through revolution. That is why the principal and fundamental talk of socialists in the struggle for stable and democratic peace must be: first, to explain to the masses the need for revolutionary mass struggle, to spread the idea of it systematically, and to set up the necessary organisations; second, to expose the hypocrisy and falsehood both of the bourgeois pacifist and of the socialist, notably Kautskian, talk about peace and the “unanimity” of the Second Inter- national on the “peace programme”. Such talk is doubly hypocritical on the part of “socialists” who follow the bourgeoisie in denying the possibility of transforming the present imperialist war into a civil war for socialism, and who oppose any revolutionary work in that direction. 10. The central point of the currently prevalent hypocri- INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONFERENCE AT KIENTHAL 373 sy concerning the “peace programme” is the allegedly unanimous recognition of the struggle against old and new annexations. But those who talk of annexations and the struggle against them either cannot or will not for the most part give thought to what annexation is. Clearly, annexation will not be the right word for every appropriation of “foreign” territory, for, generally speaking, socialists favour the abolition of frontiers between nations, their getting closer together and integration, and the formation of larger states. Clearly, not every disturbance of the status quo can be described as annexation, for this would be extremely reactionary and a mockery of the fundamental concepts of the science of history. Clearly, annexation does not apply to every kind of integration by force of arms, for socialists cannot repudiate violence in the interests of the majority of the population and in the interests of human progress. Annexation can and must clearly apply only to the appropriation of a territory against the will of the population of that territory. In other words, the concept of annexation is inseparably bound up with the concept of self-determination of nations. 11. The present war—precisely because it is an imperialist war insofar as both groups of belligerent “great” powers are concerned—inevitably had to and did give rise to the phenomenon of the bourgeoisie and the social-chauvinists “fighting” violently against “annexations” whenever this is done by an enemy state. Südekum and his Austro- German friends and defenders, including Haase and Kautsky, are silent about Germany’s annexations in respect of Alsace-Lorraine, Denmark, Poland, etc., but very frequently “struggle against the annexations” carried out by Russia in respect of Finland, Poland, the Ukraine, the Caucasus, etc., by Britain in respect of India, etc. On the other band, the British, French, Italian and Russian Südekums, viz., Hyndman, Guesde, Vandervelde, Renaudel, Trèves, Plekhanov, Axelrod, Chkheidze & Co., are silent about Britain’s annexations in respect of India, France’s in respect of Nice or Morocco, Italy’s in respect of Tripoli or Albania, Russia’s in respect of Poland, the Ukraine, etc., but then for the most part “struggle against the annexations” carried out by Germany. 374 V. I. LENIN

This kind of “struggle against annexations” on the part of the social-chauvinists and the Kautskians is clearly downright hypocritical, and the bourgeoisie is promoting their struggle both directly, by allocating millions upon millions for chauvinist propaganda, and indirectly, by giving the social-chauvinists and the Kautskians a monopoly on legality. The French “socialists”, who justify war over Alsace- Lorraine, and the German “socialists”, who fail to demand freedom for Alsace-Lorraine to secede from Germany, are clearly both annexationists, no matter how much they swear to the contrary. The Russian “socialists”, who talk or write against the “disintegration of Russia” or now, directly or indirectly, justify the war over who is to enslave Poland, in the name of the “peace without annexations” slogan, are clearly annexationists as well, etc., etc. 12. If the “struggle against annexations” is not to become an empty phrase or a revolting hypocrisy, socialists must: first, explain to the masses that it is necessary to wage revolutionary struggle for the proletariat’s winning of political power and for a socialist revolution which stems from all the conditions of the imperialist epoch and the present imperialist war and which alone can fully secure the self-determination of nations everywhere, i.e., liberate the oppressed nations, bring the nations closer together and effect their fusion not on the basis of violence, but on the basis of equality and accord between the proletariat and the working people of all nations; second, they must immediately start the most extensive propaganda and agitation against the veiled chauvinism and annexationism of the official socialist parties, especially of those of the “great” powers. Socialists must explain to the masses that a socialist and an internationalist only in name but a chauvinist and an annexationist in fact is the English socialist who fails at once to struggle for freedom to secede for Ireland, India, etc.—the French socialist who fails to struggle for the freedom of the French colonies, against the war to annex Alsace and Lorraine, etc.—the German socialist who fails to struggle for freedom to secede for Alsace- Lorraine, the Danes, the Poles, the Belgians, the Serbs, etc.—the Russian socialist who fails to struggle for freedom INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONFERENCE AT KIENTHAL 375 to secede for the Ukraine, Finland, etc., against the war over Poland—the Italian socialist who fails to struggle for freedom to secede for Tripoli, Albania, etc.—the Dutch socialist who fails to struggle for freedom to secede and independence for the Dutch East Indies—the Polish socialist who fails to struggle for the full freedom and equality of the Jews and the Ukrainians oppressed by the Poles, etc. 13. From the Zimmerwald Manifesto and the I.S.C. circular of February 10, 1916 (Bulletin No. 3)496 inevitably flows the proposition that all “war against war” and “struggle for peace” is hypocrisy unless it is indissolubly bound up with immediate revolutionary mass struggle, and with its propaganda and preparation. But this conclusion must be stated straightforwardly and explicitly. We must, first, explain to the masses where the development of revolutionary mass struggle in the conditions of a European war can and must (muß) lead. It leads inevitably to the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war for socialism. A hint of this is given in all the speeches saying that the workers should die for their own cause rather than an alien one. But hints are not enough. The great, even if perhaps not very near, goal must be clearly set before the masses. They must know where to go and why. Second, if we call on the masses to fight against their governments, “regardless of the military position of the given country”, we thereby not only repudiate the admissibility of “defending the country”, as a principle, in the present war, but admit the desirability of defeat for every bourgeois government in order to transform its defeat into revolution. That, too, must be squarely put: revolutionary mass struggle cannot become an international one unless its conscious representatives unite openly for the purpose of defeating and overthrowing all bourgeois governments. Third—and this is the most important thing—it is impossible to conduct any revolutionary mass struggle without setting up everywhere, not only at the top, but also among the masses, an illegal organisation for its propaganda and preparation, and discussion of its course and conditions. Since there have been street demonstrations in Germany, since there have been a number of letters from the front-lines in France urging against subscription to the war loan, since there 376 V. I. LENIN have been mass strikes in Britain, to say nothing of Russia, then, to promote this struggle, to help consolidate it on an international scale, it is absolutely necessary to shed light on every step along that road in a free, i.e., illegal, press, to verify the successes, to weigh their conditions, to strengthen and develop the struggle. Without an illegal organisation and an illegal press, recognition of “mass action” will remain (as it has remained in Switzerland) an empty phrase.* 14. On the question of the socialists’ parliamentary action, it must be borne in mind that the Zimmerwald resolution not only expresses sympathy for the five Social- Democratic deputies of the Duma, who belong to our Party, and who have been sentenced to exile in Siberia, but also expresses its solidarity with their tactics. It is impossible to recognise the revolutionary struggle of the masses while being content with exclusively legal, exclusively reformist activity of socialists in parliament; this can only arouse legitimate dissatisfaction among the workers and cause them to desert Social-Democracy for anti-parliamentary anarchism or syndicalism. It must be stated clearly and publicly that Social-Democratic members of parliament must use their position not only to make speeches in parliament, but also to render all possible aid outside parliament to the underground organisation and the revolutionary struggle of the workers, and that the masses themselves, through their illegal organisation, must supervise the activity of their leaders. 15. The question of calling the International Socialist Bureau, placed on the agenda of the Second International Socialist Conference, which is being convened, inevitably raises a more fundamental question of principle, as to whether the old parties and the Second International can be united. The more extensive the mass sympathy for the Zimmerwald association, the more incomprehensible to the masses, the more harmful for the development of their struggle become the inconsistency and timidity of the stand which essentially identifies the old parties and the Second Inter- national with the bourgeois policy in the working-class movement (see the Zimmerwald Manifesto and the I.S.C.

* Points 12 and 13 are crossed out in the MS.—Ed. INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONFERENCE AT KIENTHAL 377 circular of February 10, 1916), while fearing a split with them and promising to dissolve the I.S.C. as soon as the old International Socialist Bureau meets. Such a promise was never voted on and was not discussed even at Zimmerwald. The six months since Zimmerwald have made it even clearer that a split is inevitable, that the work which the Zimmerwald Manifesto recommends cannot be conducted in unity with the old parties, and that fear of a split is a brake on every step along that way. In Germany it is not only the I.S.D. group that has condemned the fear of a split and has openly come out against the hypocrisy of the apostles of unity, but also Otto Rühle, a member of the Reichstagsfrak- tion* and Karl Liebknecht’s closest friend, who has openly come out for a split. Nor was Vorwärts capable of putting forward against Rühle a single serious or honest argument. In France, member of the Socialist Party Bourderon spoke against a split, but in fact motioned a resolution at the Congress which “désapprouve (disavows) the C.A.P (Comité Administratif Permanent=the party C.C.) and the G.P.” (Groupe Parlementaire=the parliamentary group). Adoption of such a resolution would clearly signify an immediate and unconditional split in the party. In Britain even T. Russel Williams, writing in the moderate Labour Leader, repeatedly and openly admitted the inevitability of a split, and received support from a number of party members. In America, where the Socialist Party is formally united, some of its members have come out for militarism and war (so-called preparedness), and others, including Eugene Debs, a former presidential candidate from the Socialist Party, openly preach civil war for socialism in connection with the coming war. Actually, there is already a split throughout the world, and ignoring this fact would merely harm the Zimmerwald- ists, making them ridiculous in the eyes of the masses, who are very well aware that every step of t h e i r work in the Zimmerwald spirit means a continuation and deepening of the split. We must have the courage openly to recognise the inev-

* Parliamentary group.—Ed. 378 V. I. LENIN itable and the actual, to abandon any harmful illusions about the possibility of unity with the “defenders of their country” in the present war, and to help the masses escape the influence of the leaders who “are misleading them” (see the I.S.C. circular of February 10, 1916) or are hatching a “plot” (Pakt) against socialism through an “amnesty”. That is our proposal on the item of the agenda concerning the convocation of the International Socialist Bureau at The Hague. * * * Reformist phrases are the main means of deceiving the people at a time when the objective situation has placed on the agenda of history the greatest world crisis, which, regardless of the will of the various parties, can either be deferred and postponed until the next imperialist war or resolved through socialist revolution. It is neither chance nor the ill will of the several governments or the capitalists of some country but the entire development of bourgeois relations that has led to imperialism and the present imperialist war. Similarly, it is neither chance nor the result of any demagogy or agitation but the objective conditions of the crisis brought about by the war and the sharpening of class contradictions that now generate strikes, demonstrations and other similar manifestations of mass revolutionary struggle in a number of belligerent countries. Objectively, the question can only be put like this: are we to help this, still weak but intrinsically powerful and deep-going discontent and movement of the masses, which may develop into a socialist revolution, or are we to conduct a policy of helping the bourgeois governments (Durchhaltspolitik, politique jusquauboutiste*)? The real meaning of the sweet talk about democratic peace consists exclusively in help to the governments through the hypocritical stunning and fooling of the masses.

* * * This war has brought to the fore the basic problems of imperialism, i.e., of the very existence of capitalist society, * The policy of continuing the war to a victorious end.—Ed. INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONFERENCE AT KIENTHAL 379 and it would be quackery to suggest to the people, directly or indirectly, that these problems can have a reformist solution. It is a question of a redivision of the world corresponding to the new balance of power between the capitalist states, which in the last few decades have been developing not only very fast, but also—and this is especially important—very unevenly. On the basis of capitalist social relations, this new redivision of the world is impossible otherwise than through wars and violence. The objective state of things rules out any reformist solution for the ripe contradictions, it rules out any other way out except a series of imperialist wars or a socialist revolution of the proletariat, the conditions for whose success have already been created precisely by this epoch of imperialism. Real political activity in the given circumstances is possible only as this alternative: either to help your “own” national bourgeoisie plunder other countries or to help the beginning....*

Written in late February-March 1916 First published on November 6 and Printed from 7, 1927 in Pravda No. 255 the original

2 SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION ON CONVENING THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST BUREAU497 APRIL 15 (28)

1 The Lugano conference was held in September 1914.498 If Messrs. Huysmans & Co. wished to convene the Bureau, they could have done so long ago. But they have failed to do it. You deny the split between the sections of the old International, but the split is a fact. Today, we virtually have a crisis of all the socialist parties of the world. On the one hand, you treat Thomas & Co. as abject characters and traitors, and on the other hand, you say today: Oh, we

* Here the MS. breaks off.—Ed. 380 V. I. LENIN want to meet them, to discuss things and re-establish the International! What you say is empty talk: it is empty talk because it comes today, 16 months after Lugano. The men with whom you want to re-establish the International are dead, they no longer exist, not literally, but politically.

2 If Grimm thinks that everyone should not vote separately, we are quite willing to have the voting by groups. The last thing we want to do is to impose our will, but we want the voting to take place; after that we shall willingly take part in the work of the committees.

3 The question would have been solved long ago, if a vote had been taken. It is highly unfair that after many days of work together we have to forego the vote. After all, the vote would take no more than 5 minutes! Martov’s proposal is acceptable without objections.499

First published in 1965 inPrinted from Vol. 54 of the Fifth Russianthe minutes of the edition of the Collected Worksconference Translated from the German

ON THE DECLARATION BY THE POLISH SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS AT THE ZIMMERWALD CONFERENCE 500

This P.S.D. declaration at Zimmerwald shows that in opposing the right of nations to self-determination, the Polish Social-Democrats wish to say something quite different from what they are actually saying. They want to say that not every movement for national independence deserves Social-Democratic support. That is unquestionable both because any democratic demand is subordinate to the common interests of the proletariat’s class struggle, without being at all absolute, and because in the epoch of imperi- PLAN FOR ARTICLE “ON THE ROLE OF THE STATE” 381 alist rivalries to dominate the nations there may well be open and secret alliances between the bourgeoisie of an oppressed country and an oppressor country.

Written in July 1916 First published in 1962Printed from in Vol. 30 of the Fifth Russianthe original edition of the Collected Works

PLAN FOR AN ARTICLE “ON THE QUESTION OF THE ROLE OF THE STATE”501 On the Question of the Role of the State Communist or Social-Democrat? Socialism and communism. (Complete community of the articles of consumption or, at least, of the necessities.) Democracy is also a state. Absterben.... “Withering away” of the state. Why not Abschaffung* or Sprengung**? “Allmähliches Einschlafen”*** of one function after another. Without democracy= without administration of men. “The state is rooted in the souls of the workers”? Opportunism and revolutionary Social-Democracy. Dictatorship of the proletariat. PPPP Use of the state against the bourgeoisie. MMMM Resistance to its attempts at restoration. Revolutionary wars. QQQQ Introduction and defence of democracy. The role of democracy: Education of the masses Their transition to the new system Form of socialist revolution: alliances of 1905. Imperialism: the state and the economic organisations of the capitalists. “State-capitalist trusts”.... Democratic reforms of the imperialists and socialist revolution. * Destruction.—Ed. ** Explosion.—Ed. *** “Gradual somnolence.”—Ed. 382 V. I. LENIN Marx in 1844 (Nachlass, II. Band, S. 50,* end of last but one paragraph).502

Nothing except an antithesis between socialism and politics. Against Ruge’s purely political radicalism. Until 1847! Engels (“Dell’ Autorità”**)on revolution...(&) on organisation....503(&) Marx (ebenda***) ((Neue Zeit, 32, I, 1913-1914)) on political influence and struggle for concessions—on the revolutionary use of the state power....504 P Two directions in politics (politics is participation N in the affairs of state, direction of the state, definition M of the forms, tasks and content of state activity), oppor- N Q tunist and revolutionary, or two trends in the attitude to the “state”? P The democracy of the reformists and the democracy of the N revolution. Two different contents: minority and the N mass. Appeasing the mass? Helping the mass struggle? M Subordination of the mass to the authority of the leaders? N Revolt against the leaders? Engels’s “lower mass” N versus “mass” behind opportunist leaders. Boils Q down to revolution versus opportunism. Written not earlier than November 18 (December 1) 1916 First published in 1933Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXIthe original

THESES ON THE ATTITUDE OF THE SWISS SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO THE WAR**** 505 Practical Section (1) Complete repudiation of defence of country both from the military and the political standpoint, and ruthless exposure of the bourgeois lies behind this slogan. * Legacy, Vol. II, p. 50.—Ed. ** “On Authority.”—Ed. *** Ibidem.—Ed. **** See present edition, Vol. 23, pp. 149-51.—Ed. THESES ON SWISS S. D. PARTY’S ATTITUDE TO WAR 383

(2) Unconditional rejection of all war credits and demands both in time of peace and of war, and with a motivation of principle. Impose the duty of doing this on the party’s representatives in parliament and in all other state institutions. (3) Struggle in all the party’s propaganda and agitation—above all in practical activity—against all military establishments, and repudiation of all military duties to the bourgeois class state. (4) Systematic transition by the party to revolutionary struggle and revolutionary tactics all along the line, instead of being confined to reformism in practical activity. (5) Adoption of the work and activity of Karl Liebknecht and the whole Spartacus group in Germany506 as a model of the only international activity, of real struggle against the war and all wars, and emulation of their example. (6) Struggle by means of propaganda, agitation and organisation against the social-patriots (i.e., “defenders of their country”) and reformists (i.e., opponents of the immediate application of revolutionary means of struggle) within the Swiss Socialist Party. (7) Explaining to the masses that all solemn declarations against militarism and war inevitably come to empty talk without a complete change in the party’s structure and activity and without control by the resolute opponents of social-patriotism and reformism of all the posts in the socialist-political and also trade union, consumer and all other working-class organisations. (8) Propaganda and preparation of a vigorous revolutionary mass struggle (demonstrations, strikes and so on, depending on the growth of the overall revolutionary struggle) for the purposes of the proletarian revolution as the only means of doing away with wars. (9) Explaining to the masses that in case of necessity they must themselves set up from below special organisations for such struggle adapted to the hard conditions of wartime. (10) Making sure that the party’s revolutionary tasks in the struggle against the high cost of living, war, etc., are known and clear to every section of the exploited people outside the party. 384 V. I. LENIN

(11)Systematic propaganda in this context among young people of pre-conscription age, and also in the army, etc.

Written in German in late November- early December 1916 First published in 1931Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XVIIthe original Translated from the German

REMARKS ON AN ARTICLE ABOUT MAXIMALISM 507 Page 6 (Paragraph 2). Here there should be an insertion saying that Potresov has now in fact disavowed these propositions (of Kautsky & Hilferding, etc.) containing a repudiation of reformism in principle. Potresov has become a reformist. (It is not right to confine oneself to the statement: “we have never had the intention of proving”; this should be put forward as proved, and Potresov should be challenged: you and especially Maslov & Co. of Dyelo508 have in fact, but tacitly, like cowards, altogether gone over from this position to reformism.) Page 7 (end of § I) “mass action”?? It would be better to put this otherwise, without using this word which has the fault that, being largely caused by the German censorship (a pseudonym for revolution), it tends to obscure the concept of revolution. (There will have to be a reckoning on this later with Pannekoek & Radek & Co.!! Here is an example: there is no German censorship in Switzerland and here the term “mass action” has already brought about confusion which the reformists find useful.) But that is not the main thing. The main point is in your idea, which is basically incorrect, that “those of its (minimum programme) demands ... add up to a transition to a basically different social system” (page 7, § II, et al.) (idem, p. 9). That is quite wrong!! Never is a “transition to a basically different social system” achieved either by the definite demands of the minimum programme (“those of its demands”) or the sum total of the minimum- REMARKS ON AN ARTICLE ABOUT MAXIMALISM 385 programme demands. To think so is to move over to the reformist position in principle and to abandon the standpoint of the socialist revolution. The minimum programme is one which is in principle com- patible with capitalism and does not go beyond its framework. You may have wanted to say that where society is objectively mature for socialism, the implementation of the sum total of the minimum-programme demands would produce socialism. But even that is not so. The only thing that can be said is that it is most probable in practice that out of any serious struggle for the major minimum-programme demands there will flare up a struggle for socialism and that we, at any rate, are working in that direction. Another thing should not be forgotten, and this is something Pannekoek & Radek do forget, namely, that imperialism is the exploitation of hundreds of millions in the dependent nations by a handful of very rich nations. Hence, the possibility of full democracy inside the richest nation with its continued domination over dependent nations. That was the state of things in ancient Greece on the basis of slavery. That is how things now stand with New Zealand and Britain. (By the way: page 8 is not good. That’s not the way to put it. For instance, in the epoch of imperialism and the high cost of living “bread” is precisely the thing you will not get through reform alone. Page 8—defence against Potresov’s charge. The thing to do is not to defend yourself, but to attack: you confine yourself to reforms, as the liberals did in Russia in 1904.) Page 10—in 1905, the liberals confined themselves to reforms; we demanded, preached, prepared, etc., the revolution. Here it is not a question of “concreteness”, but of the basic principle (essence) of any revolution: displacement of the old class and winning of “all power” (der Macht) by the new class. (Page 10 bottom—you deal with the proletarian “reform” in a terribly clumsy and imprudent way, although you do want to say: “revolution”!! What you should say is perhaps: “As in Russia in 1904 it is not reforms but a reform.”) Page 11 is all quite wrong. Imperialism will produce both the 8-hour working day and the “arming of the people” 386 V. I. LENIN against the socialist revolution. That is precisely the point over which the struggle will not unfold. And, in general, it will not be over the minimum programme. Imperialism will produce “Bulygin Dumas” and reforms against the revolution. We shall be for the revolution. “The most important questions of the present day” will not be and are not those you name, but the high cost of living (1) & (2) imperialist wars. Reforms are powerless against the high cost of living (in the presence of the trusts, etc.), as they were against the autocracy in Russia in 1904-05. You have incorrectly put the question of reform, and of the minimum programme, and of democracy. I very strongly recommend rewriting it, confining yourself, for the time being (for a small article in Voprosy Strakhovaniya), to the antithesis: You, Mr. Potresov, are a full-fledged reformist, you confine yourself to “reforms”, you have forgotten the 6 significance and meaning of the “formula”: “not reforms, but a reform”, the significance and meaning of the quoted statements by Kautsky & Hilferding & & Bauer, etc. Dyelo=ideologically quite mature organ of reformism, of the bourgeois labour party. The “three pillars”509 before the revolution were an extension of the struggle for reform. And that is exactly how the question is formulated in the Manifesto of the Zimmerwald Left: all struggle for reform must be channeled and transformed into struggle for revolution. I do not think self-determination of nations should be set out as the “most important” in general: in so doing you go miles beyond what we have been saying until now. By coming out in this way you would force me to join up against you with—oh, horrible thought!—Bukharin!!! Isn’t it better to leave this question aside for the time being, rewriting the article à la 6 —and to work out something in the form of theses, let us say, on the attitude to the minimum programme, etc., for dispatch to the Bureau, etc.? 6 Phrases about “maximalism” are nothing but attacks by a reformist on the revolutionaries (“opponents of reformism PLANS FOR PAMPHLET STATISTICS AND SOCIOLOGY 387

in principle” for the censorship). In general, it is an exceptionally difficult thing and heikle sehr heikle Sache!!* to treat of such a question in the censored press.

Written after December 7 (20), 1916 First published in 1962 Printed from in Vol. 30 of the Fifth Russian the original edition of the Collected Works

PLANS FOR A PAMPHLET STATISTICS AND SOCIOLOGY** Statistics and Sociology

1 A) Historical conditions of national movements. B) Some theoretical questions relating to national movements. C) Right of nations to self-determination and Rosa Luxemburg. D) Cultural-national autonomy. A) Historical conditions of A. Historical background to national movements.... national movements (p. 2***) succession of epochs; Chapter 1. Some statistics types of countries as p. 4. I and historical stages in II p. 8**** this succession.... 2. Three “types” of countries.... (Types—historical stages.) B) Some theoretical questions “State of nationalities?” [Some unsettled ques- [stage of completed national * A ticklish, a very ticklish matter!!—Ed. ** See present edition, Vol. 23, pp. 271-77.—Ed. *** A reference to page. 2 of the pamphlet MS. (see ibid., pp. 271-73).—Ed. **** Ibid., pp. 273-76, 276-77.—Ed. 388 V. I. LENIN

tions?] relating to national movements. movements....] 3. Imperialism and division of the world.... (diagram?) (1) 4. Rule: oppressor and op- B. On the concept pressed nations.... of feasibility 5. “System of states....” PP system of national states PP 1. “Feasibility” of MM system of imperialist MM self-determination.QQ states QQ

2. National wars in the “epoch” of imperialism. P 510 (2) 2 bis: P Hilferding. Concept to A.ê6. “Dualism” andM M of “epoch”. monism.... Q Patouillet. 0 Q Junius.511 (3) Annexa- 3. Annexations and 7. Concurrence of im- tions self-determination. perialist and nation- and 4. Colonies and self- al wars.... colonies determination. America 1783—the “possible” and the real. (4) P 5. Lensch vs. Struve. Lensch’s “argu- Lensch’sM ments....512 argumentsQ 6. Engels on the 1866 treaty (separate sheet).... ! 7. Imperialist Economism and “ultra-impe- (5) rialism”.... !8. The state and state construction. (6) 9. Democracy and socialism. 10. Minimum and maximum. (7) 11. Social-chauvinism vs. Kautskyism on the question of self-determination and imperialism.

* These words are in English in the original.—Ed. PLANS FOR PAMPHLET STATISTICS AND SOCIOLOGY 389

(8) United States of Europe: ... Patouillet (Wilhelm II).... Colonies. (9) Social-pacifism as embel- lishment of imperialism (K. Kautsky. Dec. 1916).513

2 Distinction between the oppressor and the oppressed countries

& Marx on Ireland European states and colonies in 1869 187 6 and 1 9 16. from “Beiträge “It wasn’t worth while emancipat- ] zur Biographie”514 ^ ing the Negroes” (Wirth). Marx on the state: “der heutige Staat”* ?? (NB) & Engels about the “Law” of state concentration???? 1866 treaty and its abrogation (separate sheet). National specifics of oppressed nations (Wirth on Ireland). & Lensch’s “argu- Engels on Ireland in the event of ments” (his 2 ar- war between America and Britain. ticles).... Neue Zeit 1915-16?

...“Imperialist Econo- P Two P mism”.... M absurd- M “Ultra-imperial- ities Q ism”.... Q “Era of national “There can be no national wars” wars” in the imperialist “epoch”. (To Patouillet make it stronger!) Concept of ] and Junius ^ “epoch”....

* “The modern state.”—Ed. 390 V. I. LENIN

3 Old and new studies of the national question: To A: 1. Three “types” of countries. PP “State of nationali- PP 2. “Types”=histori- MM ties.” Incompleteness MM cal stages. QQ of this concept. QQ 3. Uneven development. P Furtherance of reforms: Bismarck vs. 1848 N Imperialist war of 1914-17 vs. 1848 (!!!) To B M Imperialism and division of the world N Imperialist wars on the basis of slavery, etc. Q Concurrence of imperialist and national wars. Historical conditions of national movements P A. Some statistics. (Facts are stubborn things.*) N N B. Theoretical mistakes in the reasoning of some Marxists on the national question. Etwa M . Right of nations to self-determi- P N C old N nation and Rosa Luxemburg. M studies.... Q D. Cultural-national autonomy. Q To B: Imperialism and the national question. “Feasibility” of national self-determination. Annexations and national self-determination. Colonies and national self-determination. The state and state construction. “Dualism” and “monism” in the national question. Diversity of movements towards a single goal. “Get out of the colonies”?? Socialism and colonies (Engels 1882). Jewry—nation? Integration of nations?

Written in January 1917 First published in 1931 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXX the original

* The last three words are in English in the original—Ed. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CENTRE AS A TREND 391

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CENTRE AS A TREND IN INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY 515 In Grimm: Characteristics of the Centre as a trend in international Social-Democracy: & 1. No rupture with the social-patriots of one’s own country either on basic principles, or in organisation; hence 2. & 2. Against split. (&—) 3. Evasiveness on the question of defence of country. & 4. Recognition of Zimmerwald and Kienthal— without a split with the I.S.B. and international social-patriotism . & 5. No break with reformism: only verbal criticism of it (“passiver Radikalismus”*). & 6. Adoption of a wait- and- see attitude (not active, not with initiative as the Left) on the coming revolution (in connection with the present war). & (ΣΣ) 7. ΣΣ=prettifying (and defending) social-patriot- (?=§1) ism in varying measure and by diverse means, such is the essence (wesen) of the Centre.... & 8. No reconstruction of the present Social-Democra- tic parties and trade unions, nothing like Liebknecht’s “regeneration from top to bottom”. Deferring this question. (—) 9. Social-pacifism as programme and tactics. & 10. No systematic propaganda of revolution in connection with the present war. & 11. No preparation of organisations, etc., for such a revolution. —α) Avanti! March 6, 1916 β) Morgari in Swiss newspaper γ) social-pacifism &αα) social-patriots exclusively ββ) the young.

* “Passive radicalism.”—Ed. 392 V. I. LENIN

In putting Liebknecht and the Italian Socialist Party side by side, Grimm tends to confuse the Centre and the Left. Grimm wants to solve a revolutionary problem (struggle against war) by reformist means (“schwächenn, erschweren, etc.*). Indirect tax, November 4-5, 1916. Reformist struggle against high cost of living (August 6, 1916). Polemics against** (“Sozialismus tut not”***). Idem Hushing up of social-patriotism in the Swiss Social- reformist Party. Absence of struggle against it. ism Idem in trade union movement (Schneeberger & Dürr). Question of the moment of revolutionary action is confused with that of systematic propaganda NB and agitational and organisational preparation for possibility of revolutionary action in general. Lying, dishonest dodges with Entwaffnung**** (cf. his own “theses”). Idem Diensterweigerung.***** Dodges on the question of was heisst “verweigern” die Leipziger Volkszeitung? Verzerrung der Frage seitens Grütli-Verein.*) NB: Paying lip service to Zimmerwald & Kienthal and carrying on as before in fact!! Page 13. From the standpoint of the Centre in general it would be consistent in Switzerland to stand for defence of the country!!!**)

Written in January 1917 First published in full in 1962 Printed from in Vol. 30 of the Fifth Russian the original edition of the Collected Works

* Weakening, complication, etc.—Ed. ** The next word is illegible.—Ed. *** “Socialism is necessary.”—Ed. **** Disarmament.—Ed. ***** Refusal to do military service.—Ed. *) What does Leipziger Volkszeitung call “refusal”? Distortion of the question on the part of Grütli-Verein.—Ed. **) Here the MS. breaks off.—Ed. PLAN FOR AN ARTICLE “THE LESSONS OF THE WAR” 393

PLAN FOR AN ARTICLE “THE LESSONS OF THE WAR”516

The Lessons of the War Etwa: 1. Definition of imperialism. 2. The imperialist character of the war has been exposed. 3. Advance of monopoly capitalism towards state capitalism. 4. “Necessity” teaches. Famine, etc. 5. Female labour. “Arbeitszwang”, etc. “Kriegssozialis- mus”?* 6. Social-patriotism or social-chauvinism. International significance. 7. Kautskyism or Centrism or social-pacifism. 8. The Left. 8 b i s. Basle Manifesto. Refuted? 9. Socio-economic approach. “Not kennt kein Gebot.”** Either socialism or famine (idem Neutrale***). 10. Wie’s gemacht wird? “Wumba.”**** 11. Political tasks: resolution. 12. Civil war. Waffen umkehren. (“Entwaffnung der Arbeiter”?)***** 13. “Break up the old state” machine (Kautsky gegen Pannekoek). 14. “Dictatorship of the proletariat.” 1871 and 1905. 15. The old, “ready-made” state power or a new one? 16. “Soviets of Workers’ Deputies.” Is that parliamenta- rism? 17. The role of new democracy and its withering away.

* “Forced labour”, etc. “War socialism”?—Ed. ** “Necessity knows no laws.”—Ed. *** Neutral.—Ed. **** How is it done? “Wumba” (Department for the Supply of Arms and Munitions).—Ed. ***** Turn weapons. (“Disarmament of workers”?)—Ed. 394 V. I. LENIN 17bis.“New” democracy (“neue Schöpfung”*)= one which is working, socialist, proletarian and communist. 18.Moments, elements, indications of a turn towards revolution.

M. Capy, urb. Gohier R. Rolland

The North American Review. The Atlantic Monthly?

Subjects:A.Imperialism and imperialist war (1-2). B.Three trends in international socialism (6-8). C.Development of the economy (3-5). D.“Feasibility” and urgency of socialism. E.Political revolution (11-17). F.“Der Sturm naht”** (18).

Written in February 1917 First published in 1939Printed from in the magazine Proletarskayathe original Revolutsia No. 1

OUTLINE OF FIFTH “LETTER FROM AFAR”517

The old programme will not do for the elections to the Constituent Assembly. It should be altered: 1) add about imperialism as the final stage of capitalism 2) about the imperialist war, imperialist wars and “defence of one’s country” &? bis: about the struggle and the split with the social- chauvinists NB 3) add about the state, the kind we need, and about the withering away of the state.

* “New creativity.”—Ed. ** “The storm approaches.”—Ed. OUTLINE OF FIFTH “LETTER FROM AFAR” 395

4) Change two last paragraphs before the political programme (against the monarchy in general and measures to restore it) 5) add to §3 of the political section: no officials from the top (cf. Engels in his criticism of 1891518) & salaries to all officials: not higher than workers’ wages & right to recall all deputies and officials at any time & 5 bis) correct §9 on self-determination & international character of socialist revolution in detail 6) correct and raise many things in minimum programme. 7) In agrarian programme: (α) nationalisation instead of municipalisation (I shall send my MS. on this, which was burnt in 1909,519 to St. Petersburg) (β) model farms on landed estates. 8) “Universal labour service” (Zivildienstpflicht) 9) cross out support for “every opposition” movement (a revolutionary one is a different matter). 10) Change name, because (α) it is wrong (β) it has been fouled by the social-chauvinists (γ) it will confuse the people at the elections, because the Social-Democrats=Chkheidze, Pot- resov & Co.

This is an outline of “letter No. 5”. Please return at once. Do you happen to have any outlines or notes for changing the practical section of the minimum programme? ((Do you remember us discussing this many times?)) This work should be started right away.

Written between March 7 and 12 (20 and 25), 1917 First published in 1959 in Printed from Lenin Miscellany XXXVI the original 396 V. I. LENIN

REPLIES TO A CORRESPONDENT OF THE NEWSPAPER POLITIKEN520 MARCH 31 (APRIL 13), 1917

Our friends did not wish to give any interviews. Instead of an interview, the arrivals have handed through Politiken a communiqué on the trip to the press and the public. The most important thing for us is to arrive in Russia as soon as possible, Lenin said warmly. Every day counts. The governments have done everything to hamper this trip.

Did you meet any of the comrades from the German party?

No. Wilhelm Jansson from Berlin tried to meet us at Lingen on the Swiss border. But Platten refused permission, giving a friendly hint that he wished to spare Jansson the unpleasantness of such a meeting.

Politiken No, 85, April 14, 1917 Printed from the Politiken text Translated from the Swedish

REPLY TO F. STRÖM, A SPOKESMAN OF THE LEFT-WING SWEDISH SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS MARCH 31 (APRIL 13), 1917

It is a downright invention to say that Frederik Ström, allegedly contrary to the wishes of the Russians, had prevented a representative of Socialdemokraten521 from attending the conference. To Ström’s question, Lenin replied: We have absolutely no trust in Mr. Branting. If you have trust in him, you are free to invite his representative.

Politiken No, 86, April 15, 1917 Printed from the Politiken text Translated from the Swedish RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONARIES’ TRIP ACROSS GERMANY 397

RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONARIES’ TRIP ACROSS GERMANY COMMUNIQUÉ OF THE GROUP 522

The Russian revolutionaries who arrived in Stockholm on Friday morning handed to Politiken for publication the following official communiqué concerning their trip: Britain, which officially welcomed the Russian revolution with “joy in her heart”, at once did everything to nullify one of the results of the revolution—the political amnesty. The British Government does not allow transit to Russia for Russian revolutionaries who live abroad and who oppose the war. When this had been proved beyond doubt—this fact has been confirmed by numerous documents which will be made public in the very near future, and Russian socialists of all trends have stated as much in a unanimous resolution—a section of the Russian Party comrades decided to try to return from Switzerland to Russia via Germany and Sweden. Fritz Platten, Secretary of the Swiss Social- Democratic Party and the leader of its Left Wing, a well- known internationalist and anti-militarist, conducted negotiations with the German Government. For their trip the Russian Party comrades demanded the right of extraterrito- riality (no inspection of passports or luggage; no officials allowed into their car). The group of those who travelled could include anyone, regardless of political views, provided the Russians themselves approved of his candidature. The Russian Party comrades declared that in return they would demand the release of Austrian and German civilians interned in Russia. The German Government accepted the terms, and 30 Rus- sian Party comrades, men and women, left Gottmadingen on April 9, including Lenin and Zinoviev, editors of Sotsial- Demokrat, the Central Organ of Russian Social-Democracy; Mikha Tskhakaya, editor of Nachalo523 in Paris and a founder of the Caucasian Social-Democratic organisation, who had earlier brought Chkheidze into the party, and also several members of the Jewish Workers’ Union. Fritz Platten was in charge of the trip and he alone conducted all the necessary negotiations with the representatives of the German Govern- ment who accompanied the train. 398 V. I. LENIN

During the three-day crossing of Germany, the Russian Party comrades did not leave their car. The agreement was strictly honoured by the German authorities. On the 12th instant, the Russians arrived in Sweden. Before their departure from Switzerland, a record was made of all the preparations for the trip. Having studied this document, Henri Guilbeaux, representing the French Social-Democratic group “Vie Ouvrière” and editor of Demain524; a leader of the radical French opposition in Paris, whose name cannot now be divulged525; Paul Hartstein, a member of the radical German opposition; M. Bronski, representing Russian-Polish Social-Democracy, and Fritz Platten signed a statement voicing their full approval of the way in which the Russian Party comrades had acted.

Written on March 31 (April 13), Published on April 14, 1917 in the newspaper Politiken No. 85 Published in Russian in partPrinted from the on April 5 (18), 1917 in thePolitiken text newspapers Dyen No. 25 andTranslated from Rech No. 78the Swedish

SPEECH AT A CONFERENCE WITH LEFT-WING SWEDISH SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS MARCH 31 (APRIL 13), 1917526 NEWSPAPER REPORT On behalf of the Russian comrades, Lenin voiced his thanks for the welcome and said that a congress of the Russian Socialist Party due to be called shortly would put forward an international proposal. Close ties would be maintained with the Swedish comrades, especially with Politiken.

Politiken No, 86, Printed from the April 15, 1917 Politiken text Translated from the Swedish “LIBERTY LOAN” 399

SPEECH IN THE FINLAND STATION SQUARE TO WORKERS, SOLDIERS AND SAILORS APRIL 3 (16), 1917 NEWSPAPER REPORT In the street, standing on top of an armoured car, Comrade Lenin greeted the revolutionary Russian proletariat and the revolutionary Russian army, who had succeeded not only in liberating Russia from tsarist despotism, but in starting a social revolution on an international scale, and added that the proletariat of the whole world looked with hope to the Russian proletariat’s bold steps. The whole crowd walked in a body behind the car to the Kshesinskaya mansion, where the meeting continued.

Pravda No. 24, April 5, 1917Printed from the Pravda text

“LIBERTY LOAN”527 (DRAFT RESOLUTION WORKED OUT BY THE BOLSHEVIK GROUP OF THE SOVIET OF WORKERS’ DEPUTIES) Resolution of the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies Concerning the 4th “Liberty Loan” In virtue of the fact that the present war is a predatory imperialist war, that its character has not changed at all since power in Russia passed to the capitalist Provisional Government, and that the secret treaties of the allied powers, which determine the true aims of the war, remain in force— the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies protests most vigorously against the so-called “liberty loan” and refuses to support the Provisional Government in its intentions to drag out the war, which benefits no one but the imperialist bourgeoisie. If the workers of all countries of the world vote for the loans issued by their bourgeois governments to wage the imperialist war, it will be impossible to find a way out of the horrors of the war, and all talk about the fraternal 400 V. I. LENIN solidarity of the proletariat of the world, about internationalism, etc., will come to nothing but hypocrisy. The coupling of votes for the loan with wishes, statements, declarations, etc., in favour of peace without annexations is especially clear evidence of the disastrous discrepancy between word and deed, which has destroyed the Second International. Until political and economic power has passed into the hands of the proletariat and the poor sections of the peasantry, and while the aim of the war is determined by the interests of capital, the workers reject any new loans aimed not for but against Russia’s revolutionary freedom. Recognising at the same time that the supply of the army with all necessities calls for resources, and not wishing to leave their brothers without bread for a single hour, the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies believes that the cost of the capitalist war should be borne by the capitalists who have reaped and continue to reap billions of rubles in profits on this war, and insists that the necessary money should come exclusively from the pockets of the bourgeoisie and the landowners.

Written on April 11 (24), 1917 Published on April 13, 1917Printed from the in Pravda No. 31Pravda text

PETROGRAD CITY R.S.D.L.P.(B.) CONFERENCE528 APRIL 14 - ùù (APRIL, ùû - MAY 5), 191û

1 REPORT OF THE PRE SENT SITUATION AND THE ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE PROVISIONAL, GOVERNMENT APRIL 14 (27)

NEWSPAPER REPORT The old traditional formulas (dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry) no longer meet the changed conditions. A revolutionary-democratic dictatorship has been PETROGRAD CITY R.S.D.L.P.(B.) CONFERENCE 401 established but not in the form we envisaged: it is inter- locked with the dictatorship of the imperialist bourgeoisie. The imperialist war has confused everything, turning the rabid opponents of the revolution—the Anglo-French capitalists—into supporters of the revolution for victory (the same applies to the top army command and counter- revolutionary bourgeoisie). It is this unique historical concurrence of circumstances that has brought about a dual dictatorship: the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the dictatorship of revolutionary democracy. In organisational terms, the people have never managed to keep abreast of the bourgeoisie; in Russia the people have set up their own organised power without having achieved political independence. Hence, the dual power, the unconsciously trusting attitude on the part of the petty- bourgeois majority of the soldier masses and a section of the workers to the Provisional Government, and the voluntary submission of revolutionary democracy to the bourgeois dictatorship. The specific feature of the present situation is that lack of political awareness on the part of the masses is preventing the establishment of a stable and conscious majority on the side of the proletarian policy (all other political trends have gone over entirely to the petty-bourgeois position). The revolutionary democracy is an assembly of the most diverse elements (in terms of class status and interests, which is not the same thing at all!). Their strati- fication: in the countryside—the well-to-do peasants, who have been strengthened by the November 9 law, and the poor, one-horse and horseless peasants, and in the towns— the sections close to the working class and the petty proprietors; the separation of the proletarians and the semi- proletarians from the petty bourgeoisie is inevitable, but the consolidation of the propertied elements in the revolutionary bloc may well advance to a point where it will pre- vail over the organisation of the masses rallying round the proletarian slogans. It is quite possible, therefore, that power will remain in the hands of the bourgeoisie, and that there will be no transfer of power to the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. The conclusion: we are not faced with the task of overthrowing the Provisional Govern- ment—it rests on the confidence of the petty-bourgeois and 402 V. I. LENIN a section of the workers’ masses—but with that of painstaking explanation of the class tasks and organisation.

Pravda No. 40, Printed from the May 8 (April 25), 1917 Pravda text

2 SPEECH IN MOVING A RESOLUTION ON THE WAR APRIL 22 (MAY 5) The resolution on the war was drafted in the committee, but the final version is yet to be worked out. I think that in its final wording the resolution will be put before the general Party conference, and I now move that it be read out in its present form. The resolution consists of three parts: 1) objective causes of the war, 2) revolutionary defencism, and 3) how to end the war.

First published in 1925 in the book Printed from Petrogradskaya obshchegorodskaya a typewritten i Vserossiiskaya konferentsii copy of the R.S.D.R.P.(B.) v aprele 1917 goda minutes (Petrograd City and All-Russia Conferences of the R.S.D.L.P.[B.], April 1917)

SPEECH AT A MEETING OF SOLDIERS OF AN ARMOURED BATTALION IN MIKHAILOVSKY MANÈGE APRIL 15 (28), 1917 NEWSPAPER REPORT We Social-Democrats who take the standpoint of international socialism, are being accused of having returned to Russia via Germany, of having been bribed by the Ger- mans and of being traitors to the national cause, the cause of freedom. Who is saying all this? Who is spreading these lies and slander? Soldiers and workers who read the working-class newspapers are aware that a decision of the Soviet which was taken after a hearing of the report by Comrade Zinoviev SPEECH AT MEETING OF SOLDIERS OF ARMOURED BATTALION 403 and Comrade Zurabov on how we managed to make our way across Germany, was published in Izvestia Sovieta Rabochikh i Soldatskikh Deputatovs529 No. 32, of April 5, 1917. Did the Soviet reprimand us? No. What did the Soviet say? It replied that it wanted the Provisional Government to take urgent measures for the unhampered passage to Russia of all Russian political exiles living abroad. Comrade Lenin then stated that until now the Provisional Government has failed to take any measures and that our socialist comrades living abroad could not return to Russia. Why? Simply because Britain, who has a stake in this fratricidal slaughter, has refused to allow passage for our socialist comrades, socialists who have declared war against war and demand peace. The British are keeping in prison one of their own British socialists,530 and have also arrested and imprisoned our Comrade Trotsky, who was Chairman of the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies in 1905. But that is precisely what has been done by all the capitalist and landowner governments favouring this war: the French, the German and the Italian governments have thrown all anti-war socialists into prison and are keeping them there. Was it possible in the circumstances to travel via Bri- tain? No. That is why we had to apply to the Swiss socialist Platten, who also favours peace. What was the upshot of this? Lenin and those who travelled with him were let through, but our witness, Comrade Platten, who could testify that we had had no contacts with the Germans, was not allowed to come to Russia. What is the point of all this? It is that this war, which is now taking hundreds of thousands of lives a month, is being waged by the capitalists—they stand to gain from the war, they are profiting from it, and that is why all those who want peace and work for it are being imprisoned by the capitalists of all countries, including the brigand and plunderer Wilhelm, who spread lies and slander about the socialists. Comrade Lenin then went on to give a detailed explanation of the causes of the war and its aims. He showed that 404 V. I. LENIN the working class and the poor peasants have never wanted and do not want this or any other war. He also spoke in detail about the nature of the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies and of the Provisional Government, on which the industrialist Guchkov and the landowners have seats. Support and help should not go to the Provisional Govern- ment, but to the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, which is the only legitimate government and which alone expresses the people’s interests.

Soldatskaya Pravda No. 2 Printed from the April 18 (May 1), 1917 Soldatskaya Pravda text

MEETING OF THE SOLDIERS’ SECTION OF THE PETROGRAD SOVIET OF WORKERS’ AND SOLDIERS’ DEPUTIES APRIL 1û (30), 191û 531

1 SPEECH ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMISSION OF THE SOVIET OF SOLDIERS’ DEPUTIES Lenin says that he has read the resolution of the Executive Commission and the Committee on his activity and has decided to insert his article on this resolution in Pravda; just now he wishes to reply briefly to the charges being levelled against him. He finds that there are four questions to which he wants to reply: 1) formal question, 2) question of land, 3) of the government, 4) of the war. On the first question he welcomes the silence of the resolution on his trip across Germany, as it shows that the Commis- sion has taken the standpoint of both sections of the Com- mittee, which say nothing about it. He reads an extract from the resolution: “... considers the propaganda of so- called Leninists, etc.” and declares that he assumes full responsibility for the Leninists’ propaganda. To reply to this charge in the resolution, the three above-mentioned questions must be examined. He goes on to explain these MEETING OF SOLDIERS’ SECTION OF PETROGRAD SOVIET 405 questions. On the question of land—he favours the transfer of all land to the use of the working masses without redemption; he speaks about the transfer by decision of peasant committees, and refers to Shingaryov’s telegram, which says that the taking away of land is an arbitrary act. That is wrong because it has been done by decision of the village committees, which makes the seizure legal. It is naive to think that the peasants can be influenced by sermons from Petrograd; that is impossible. The question of land will be decided on the spot. The land should be taken over right away, in view of the looming famine. Voluntary agreement with the landowners is an absurdity, you cannot have an agreement between 300 peasant families and one landowner, which is the ratio we now have in European Russia. (A proposal is motioned to limit the speaker’s time. State- ments are made for and against; by a vote the time is limited to 30 minutes.) Lenin says that if the meeting wishes it, he could alter the time of the explanations, but could also be through within 20 minutes. On the state structure and administration he says that we need a people’s republic, and not one with officials, capitalists and troops. Soviets of Workers’, Peasants’ and Farm Labourers’ Deputies, from top to bottom, that is the ideal of administration. The people must have the power. On the question of the war he says that he has never spoken about the draft reinforcements and knows nothing of the question at all.532 That is why he speaks only about the war. Our government consists only of capitalists, the war is being waged to benefit the capitalists, and the war can be ended only through a revolution by the workers’ masses. The obligations undertaken by our allies are predatory, they deal only with a sharing of the spoils; annexation is connected with capital, and cannot be repudiated until capital is taken over. He holds the capitalists in Germany to be the same as our own capitalists, and says that Wilhelm is a bloodsucker and, of course, there can be no question of a separate peace with him—that is absurd. The capitalists started the war and cannot end it—there is need for a workers’ revolution to end the war. The Leninists are 406 V. I. LENIN against any separate peace. They said as much back in 1915. They said that the proletariat, once it takes power, and publishes all the treaties, must offer peace to the whole world.* If anyone rejects such peace, the proletariat will start a revolutionary war. Only a revolution by workers in several countries can put an end to the war. Universal peace can be achieved only through a workers’ revolution, The practical method of ending the war is fraternisation at the front, and strengthening the power of the Soviet of Workers’, Peasants’ and Farm Labourers’ Deputies. That is the only way to bring about the workers’ revolution and universal peace. 2 REPLIES TO QUESTIONS 1) The reconquest of Kurland is annexation, because in that case Germany is entitled to reconquer her colonies. The people must be left to decide for themselves how they want to live. In the capitalist world the sharing out is according to strength—the stronger get more. It is not worth while fighting over Kurland, but it is worth while fighting for Kurland’s freedom to decide whom she wants to join. 2) On the seizure of banks and money. He urges that the seizures should not be arbitrary but by decision of the majority. (Shouts from the audience: “Your doctrine leads to a primitive state”.)—No! (Question: “What is to be done if other countries want peace?”)—Advance of the workers’ revolution and fraternisation at the front. Tactics—we must see how life goes forward. The experience of life is the best thing. We must develop the Russian revolution in such a way that the workers’, peasants’ and farm labourers’ deputies have the power. (Another question: “Is that what you preached in Germany? We, that is, Zinoviev and I, published a pamphlet533 abroad, in which we said precisely what we are saying now; we published it in German and the German socialists circulated it in Germany. First published in full in 1962 Printed from in Vol. 31 or the Fifth Russian a typewritten edition of the Collected Works copy of the minutes * See present edition, Vol. 21, p. 403.—Ed. PROGROM AGITATION IN MINISTERIAL NEWSPAPER 407

THE ATTENTION OF COMRADES!

Comrades Lashevich, Krymov and Mavrin, authorised by the Bolshevik group of the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, request us to declare that the overwhelming majority of the workers who took part in the manifestations on April 20 and 21 and carried “Down with the Provisional Government!” placards, understood this slogan to mean exclusively that all power should be transferred to the Soviets and that the workers want to take over only after winning a majority in the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. The present composition of the Soviet does not quite express the will of the majority of the workers’ and soldiers’ masses. That is why the Bolshevik group believes that the C.C. resolution of April 22 does not give a precise characteristic of the present state of affairs.

From the Editors. It goes without saying that the C.C. resolution is in no sense aimed against the organisers of the mass demonstrations, and that such an interpretation of the slogan rules out any idea of thoughtlessness or adventur- ism. At any rate, the peaceful and impressively massive character of these manifestations is to the great credit of these comrades as representing the organisers of the manifestations. They alone organised a fitting rebuff to the bourgeoisie, which was demonstrating in favour of its own Provisional Government.

Written on April 22 (May 5), 1917 Published on May 6 (April 23), 1917 Printed from the in Pravda No. 39 Pravda text

POGROM AGITATION IN MINISTERIAL NEWSPAPER The ministerial gentlemen, having secured a fresh expression of confidence on the part of the majority of the Soviet leaders, have started a fresh offensive against Pravda and against our Party. Rech, the ministerial newspaper, has adopted the worst methods of Russkaya Volya.534 408 V. I. LENIN

In today’s two editorials, the ministerial newspaper, rehearsing the Russkaya Volya elements, does enough lying for two papers.

“The whole” (sic) “of Petrograd has awakened; it has gone out into the street and has loudly and solemnly proclaimed its confidence in the Provisional Government.” “The whole” of Petrograd!— the ministerial paper will have nothing less.... If from the “whole” of Petrograd we subtract all the workers, who demonstrated against the Provisional Government, if we subtract the vast majority of the soldiers who went out into the street and demonstrated against the Provisional Government, if we subtract the hundreds of thousands of people who simply stayed at home, if the “whole” of Petrograd is taken to mean an insignificant minority of the bourgeoisie, a small section of the students, and a section of the senior army officers—then the ministerial paper is right: the “whole” of Petrograd has come out for the Guchkovs and the Milyukovs.... Relying on the “whole” of Petrograd (remember the Potemkin villages!535), the ministerial newspaper launches directly into pogrom baiting against us.

“...These shots by some armed men, these killings of soldiers, in connection with the unprecedentedly brazen flying of the defeatist flags from the German embassy.... Yesterday’s bloody outrages by the Leninists have worn thin everyone’s tolerance and have dealt an irreparable blow to this anti-national treasonable propaganda. Let us hope that this propaganda will never again dare to rear its head.”

Let the reader judge where the brazenness lies. Every word there is lies and slander. Our comrades did not fly any flags at all from the German embassy. Our comrades are not to blame for the killings of the soldiers. Responsi- bility for yesterday’s acts of violence falls on the Provisional Government and no one else. Let the reader judge whose propaganda is really treasonable.

Written on April 22 (May 5), 1917 Published on May 6 (April 23), 1917 Printed from the in Pravda No. 39 Pravda text SEVENTH (APRIL) ALL-RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.(B.) 409

THE SEVENTH (APRIL) ALL-RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.(B.)536 APRIL ù4-ù9 (MAY û-1ù), 191û

1 SPEECH ON THE PLAN TO CONVENE AN INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONFERENCE537 APRIL 25 (MAY 8)

1 VARIANT OF MINUTES I do not agree with the previous speaker. In Borgbjerg’s proposal we have a political fact of exceptional importance which imposes on us the duty of exposing the social-chauvinists and launching a political campaign. The British and French “socialists” have rejected Borgbjerg’s proposal. The British and French Plekhanovs are not coming to this conference. Borgbjerg’s proposals are a farce. Through Borgbjerg, the German social-chauvinists are offering their terms for peace. They are doing this through a socialist in order to cover up their social-chauvinist intrigue. This must be exposed, to discourage them from ever again applying to the socialist parties. There can be no doubt at all that this is a proposal coming from the German Government, which is acting through its own social-chauvinists. It is the one that is arranging this congress.... It cannot do so openly, and is therefore doing it through its own Plekhanovs. By this diplomatic step the German Government sheds all responsibility while propounding through them its secret hopes. Let me read you a report in a foreign paper about Borgbjerg: “Through a Danish social-chauvinist, the German Kaiser wants to call a peace conference in his own interests.” Borgbjerg’s proposal is clearly nothing but a fraud and a swindle. Then we have a report from Rabochaya Gazeta.538 (Reads out the report from “Rabochaya Gazeta” of April ?5, 1917 .) It is beyond doubt, therefore? that this is a proposal from the German Government. That is how such things are done. It is our task to expose the inner workings of this to the 410 V. I. LENIN world, i.e., pass a detailed resolution, translate it into several languages and publish it in all the papers. I move a draft resolution. It is a curious fact that the capitalist newspapers are maintaining a diplomatic silence. They know the rule, that speech is silvern and silence is golden. The bourgeois newspapers know what the whole thing is about. Newspapers like Rabochaya Gazeta are at a loss. Yedinstvo539 alone has said that Borgbjerg is an agent of the German Government. But by saying in the next breath that neither the British nor the French social-chauvinists, nor the Rus- sian Plekhanovs will attend this conference under any circumstances, it exposes the British, French and Russian governments, who, being aware of the really difficult condition of Germany, hope to fill their appetites at her expense. We must expose this comedy of masques. We must tell how such things are done: Bethmann-Hollweg goes to Wilhelm, Wilhelm summons Scheidemann, Scheidemann goes to Denmark, and as a result, Borgbjerg goes to Russia with the peace terms. (Reads out the resolution.) Trier is a Danish Marxist. Denmark is a petty-bourgeois country. Her bourgeoisie has battened on the war and hates the workers. The leaders of the Danish Social-Democratic majority are among the most opportunist in Europe. They have clearly exposed themselves as real social-chauvinists. We, for our part, must be fair and say about Borgbjerg what we have said about Plekhanov. If we hear fine phrases shouted to us about Alsace-Lorraine, we must remember that the whole thing boils down to money. In fact, it is a question of unusually rich ores. It is a question of profit, a peaceful sharing out of the booty between the German and the French capitalists. The Danish internationalists have rejected this. I forgot to say that the Kautskyites have agreed to attend the conference, and this must be exposed. The proposal coming via Borgbjerg says that the German capitalists are bargaining, because they are incapable of holding on to what they have seized. Germany’s position is desperate, she is on the brink of ruin. But the German capitalists still hope to retain a bit. The diplomatists have strong bonds with each other, they know everything, everything is clear to them. The people alone are not told SEVENTH (APRIL) ALL-RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.(B.) 411 such things. The Anglo-French chauvinists have refused to attend the conference because they are very well aware of the real state of affairs. There was good reason for their taking ministerial office. It is now a matter of strangulating and plundering Germany, for she is no longer capable of conducting a policy of aggrandizement. Borgbjerg is an agent of German imperialism. If the soldiers receive this resolution they will understand that it is now a question of squeezing the last breath out of Germany. Congresses are farces attended by social-chauvinist diplomatists. There is the congress, and in the next room they will be sharing out Alsace-Lorraine. The truth about congresses must be told once and for all, to open the people’s eyes. If we adopt this manifesto and have it printed, translated into foreign languages and circulated among the workers and soldiers, they will understand the real state of affairs. This will be a very genuine campaign, it will be a clarification of the proletarian line. First published in 1958 in the book Printed from the Sedmaya (Aprelskaya) Vserossiiskaya text of the book konferentsia R.S.D.R.P.(B.). Petrogradskaya obshchegorodskaya konferentsia R.S.D.R.P.(B.). Aprel 1917 goda. Protokoly (The Seventh [April] All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.[B.]. The Petrograd City Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.[B.], April 1917. Minutes).

2 NEWSPAPER REPORT The invitation to attend the conference is addressed to all the socialist parties of Russia and consequently to our own as well, and so we cannot simply ignore this fact of international importance. The social-chauvinists of all the belligerent countries are acting as unofficial representatives of their governments and ruling classes, Comrade Lenin said. The German Government, under the pressure of internal discontent, is prepared to give up some of its annexations, and Borgbjerg is its diplomatic representative. He (a representative of Stauning’s party, from which a group of Marxists, headed by Comrade Trier, withdrew following 412 V. I. LENIN

Stauning’s entry into the bourgeois ministry) has nothing in common either with the German or the Scandinavian workers. A conference of social-patriotic majorities appears to the German ruling circles to be a convenient occasion for trying to come to terms with the brigands on the other side. The social-patriots, who have taken part in this ignominious war, as Comrade Nogin put it, want to have a hand in its ignominious end as well. On the other hand, the rebuff administered to this proposal by the imperialists of the Triple Entente lays quite bare their schemes of conquest. That is what revolutionary Social-Democracy must use in its own interests, by exposing the fraud on both sides. The Party, which unites more than 70,000 workers, must issue a warning against this fraud to the internationalist workers of all countries. Pravda No. 41 Printed from the May 9 (April 26), 1917 Pravda text 2 PROPOSAL FOR LINES OF DEBATE ON V. P. NOGIN’S REPORT ON “ATTITUDE TO THE SOVIETS OF WORKERS’ AND SOLDIERS’ DEPUTIES” APRIL 25 (MAY 8) It is proposed that speakers concentrate on replies to specific questions for working out a general Party platform. Questions: 1) militia, 2) working hours, 3) wages, 4) increase and decrease of production, 5) have there been any removals of management? how and from whom is it organised? 6) single or dual power, 7) elements reducing revolutionary élan, 8) disarmament of the bourgeoisie, 9) food supplies, 10)....* Additional: 1) are the Soviets being transformed into Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies? 2) their role in connection with the state-wide Soviet.

First published in 1934 in the book Printed from a Sedmaya (Aprelskaya) Vserossiiskaya typewritten i Petrogradskaya obshchegorodskaya copy of the konferentsii R.S.D.R.P.(B.). minutes Aprel 1917 goda

* Hiatus in the minutes.—Ed. SEVENTH (APRIL) ALL-RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.(B.) 413

3 SPEECH ON THE ATTITUDE TO THE SOVIETS OF WORKERS’ AND SOLDIERS’ DEPUTIES APRIL 25 (MAY 8)

1 MINUTES The materials submitted by comrades on the activity of the Soviets, while being incomplete, are remarkably interesting. This may be the most important information material produced by the conference, material which makes it possible to verify our slogans against the actual course of life. The picture we now have disposes us to optimistic conclusions. The movement started out in the centres; initially all the energy of the proletariat there was concentrated on the struggle. A mass of energy was spent on the struggle against tsarism. This struggle in Petrograd has eliminated the central state power. A gigantic task has been done. But if that has led to the seizure of power by the bourgeoisie it does not warrant any pessimistic conclusions, it is not right to regard the workers’ failure to take power as a mistake. It would be utopian to suppose that after a few days of struggle the masses could have taken power into their hands. That could not have been done in the presence of the bourgeoisie, which was very well prepared for taking over. From the centre, the revolution is moving into the localities. That is what happened in France—the revolution is becoming a municipal one. The movement in the localities shows that there the majority is for the peasants, for the workers, that there has been the least leadership from the bourgeoisie; that there the masses did not lose their head. The more data we collect, the more they show us that the greater the proletarian section of the population and the fewer the intermediate elements, the better the revolution advances in the localities. The Kazan comrades have gone over directly to the tasks of the socialist revolution. We find that even where the proletariat’s organisations are insignificant, the practical requirements have given the proletariat an absolutely correct definition of its tasks. Without such elements as, for instance, statistics, etc., the proletarian 414 V. I. LENIN revolution cannot be carried out. For the proletarian revolution to be carried out, it is necessary that the engineers, technicians, etc., should be under the practical control of the revolutionary proletariat. The revolution in the localities has gone forward easily. There is always the danger of anarchy in a revolution. Over here anarchy is not....* The bourgeois revolution is unmindful of production, but here the workers are giving it thought. The workers are interested in seeing that production does not dwindle. The revolution in the localities is going forward in gigantic strides. Reports from the localities have shown that the sharper the class contradictions, the more correctly the revolution advances, the surer the dictatorship of the proletariat is realised. While the dictatorship of the proletariat is being implemented in the small localities, the centres turn out to be the least suitable for the revolution’s advance. There is absolutely no ground for any pessimism. It is a fact that collaboration with the bourgeoisie is beginning in the centres. Through its better organisation, the bourgeoisie is trying to turn the proletariat into a servitor, to make the workers temporary participants in what the bourgeoisie is building. It is ridiculous to think that the Russian people are drawing their guiding principles from pamphlets. Not at all, it is from the immediate practice that the experience of the masses flows....* The people can work it out by participating in a mass movement. The people themselves have started to accumulate mass experience....* In Penza Gubernia, the power took shape under the dictatorship of the peasantry. The Penza representative showed the resolutions of the peasants who had taken over the implements of production and land. Marx’s words are being confirmed....* The programme of the revolution is being carried out in the localities—in order to have grain ...* to establish relations themselves. This revolution produces men of practice. The revolution can go forward only under the control of practical experience in the localities. And we are very greatly encouraged by the course of the revolution throughout the whole of Russia, where the gigantic majority are peasants.

* Hiatus in the minutes.—Ed. SEVENTH (APRIL) ALL-RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.(B.) 415

After there proved to be insufficient strength to take over production in the centre, this is being done in the provinces, where it is easily done. In the provinces, the revolution is a municipal one, and it is giving impetus to the centre; the latter is picking up their experience. The comrade coal-miner said that their first task when...* was to go for grain.... It is wrong to think that this experience can go to waste. Without this experience, the centres have nowhere to get an impetus from for a fresh revolution. The new revolution is mounting. The course of events, the dislocation of life, the famine—that is what is propelling the revolution. Hence the struggle against the elements supporting the bourgeoisie. Things are moving towards a collapse which the bourgeoisie will not cope with. We are preparing a new multimillion army which could show its mettle in the Soviets, in the Constituent Assembly—just how, we do not as yet know. Over here in the centre we do not have enough strength. There is a tremendous preponderance in the provinces. On our side is the development of the revolution in the localities, which is going forward and overtaking us. The people are not setting themselves any communist plans. The revolutionary class throughout Russia is mustering its forces, and it is our task to accumulate this experience and take a step as these forces are mustered. We must not allow ourselves to be intimidated by the fact that they (Narodniks, Mensheviks) are in such an overwhelming majority. On the strength of the experience, we can now state in the resolution....* In the localities, the production has to be taken over, otherwise the collapse is inevitable. The peasants will not give the grain. To obtain the grain, the measures must be revolutionary, which can be put through by the revolutionary class, relying on the masses in their millions. I asked comrades from the localities about the state of production there. The 8-hour day has been introduced in Nizhny Novgorod

* Hiatus in the minutes.—Ed. 416 V. I. LENIN

Gubernia, and production has increased. That is the earnest. There is no other way of escaping the ruin. It will take a vast amount of work. We are separating ourselves from the petty-bourgeois line. Life is on our side. The crisis cannot be resolved by petty-bourgeois-democratic methods, because they stop short of revolutionary measures (Shinga- ryov, Milyukov). The general course of the revolution shows that things are moving forward. We do not differ from the petty bourgeoisie in that it says “caution”, and we say “speed”; we say “even more caution”. There must be a relentless struggle against this state game....* Better later than earlier—and the centre will win out. (Applause.) First published in 1934 in the book Printed from a Sedmaya (Aprelskaya) Vserossiiskaya typewritten i Petrogradskaya obshchegorodskaya copy of the konferentsii R.S.D.R.P.(B.). minutes Aprel 1917 goda

2 NEWSPAPER REPORT Comrade Lenin pointed out that the French revolution passed through a phase of municipal revolution, that it drew its strength from the local organs of self-government, which became its mainstay. In the Russian revolution we observe a certain bureaucracy in the centres, and a greater exercise of power wielded by the Soviets locally, in the provinces. In the capital cities the Soviets are politically more dependent on the bourgeois central authorities than those in the provinces. In the centres it is not so easy to take control of production, in the provinces this has already been carried out to some extent. The inference is: to strengthen the local Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies. Progress in this respect is possible, coming primarily from the provinces.

Pravda No. 42 Printed from the May 10 (April 27), 1917 Pravda text

* Hiatus in the minutes.—Ed. SEVENTH (APRIL) ALL-RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.(B.) 417

4 SPEECH IN DEFENCE OF THE RESOLUTION ON THE WAR APRIL 27 (MAY 10) NEWSPAPER REPORT Comrade Lenin, speaking in substantiation of the first resolution, pointed out the need for dividing the resolution into three parts: first, giving a class analysis of the war; second, dealing with so-called “revolutionary defencism”, and third, answering the question of how to end the war. The first part of the resolution exposes the mainsprings of the imperialist war, establishes their connection with a definite period in the development of capitalism and brings out the annexationist strivings of the ruling classes of all countries. The second part gives a characteristic of the peculiar trend. The third part outlines the way to end the war—the way of revolutionary class struggle for power—refuting the absurd slander about a “separate” peace.

Pravda No. 44 Printed from the May 12 (April 29), 1917 Pravda text

5 REMARKS IN THE DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION ON THE WAR APRIL 27 (MAY 10)

1 Gelman motions that the words “Menshevik opportunist Social- Democratic Party” should be replaced by the words “the Party’s opportunist wing”, arguing that not all the Mensheviks belong to the defencist trend, and that the Left wing does not share the defencist standpoint. Lenin opposes the amendment: we are speaking about the majority, about the Menshevik Party as a whole, which is why the characteristic should not be changed.

2 Vedernikov proposes that the names “Chkheidze, Tsereteli and others” should be struck out.... If we delete them the resolution will not lose in any way. 418 V. I. LENIN

Ovsyanikov ... proposes that the words “Chkheidze, Tsereteli, the O.C.” should be deleted. Lenin comes out against both amendments. One of two things—either the names or the O.C.—unless both are retained. The first comrade proposes to leave the O.C. in and throw out the names. But is the Organising Committee sufficiently well known to the masses, or must the well- known names of Tsereteli and Chkheidze be used to clarify the state of affairs for the masses?

3 Sokolnikov proposes the deletion of the word “completely” in the phrase: “Steps designed to make them completely harmless politically”, because only by undermining their economic domination can the capitalists be rendered politically harmless....

Lenin speaks out against the deletion of the word “completely” and proposes the wording: “Steps undermining the economic domination of the capitalists, and steps designed to make them completely....”

First published in 1925 in the bookPrinted from Petrogradskaya obshchegorodskayaa typewritten i Vserossiiskaya konferentsiicopy of the R.S.D.R.P.(B.). v aprele 1917 godaminutes

6 PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALTERATIONS IN THE R.S.D.L.P. PARTY PROGRAMME540 At the end of the preamble (after the words “the standpoint of the proletariat”) insert: World capitalism has at the present time, i.e., since about the beginning of the twentieth century, reached the stage of imperialism. Imperialism, or the epoch of finance capital, is a high stage of development of the capitalist economic system, one in which monopolist associations of capitalists—syndicates, cartels and trusts—have assumed decisive importance: in which enormously concentrated banking capital has fused with industrial capital; in which the export of capital to foreign countries has assumed vast proportions: in which the whole world has been divided up SEVENTH (APRIL) ALL-RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.(B.) 419 territorially among the richer countries, and the economic carve-up of the world among international trusts has begun. Imperialist wars, i.e., wars for world domination, for markets for banking capital and for the subjugation of small and weaker nations, are inevitable under such a state of affairs. The first great imperialist war, the war of 1914-17, is precisely such a war. The extremely high level of development which world capitalism in general has attained, the replacement of free competition by monopoly capitalism, the fact that the banks and the capitalist associations have prepared the machinery for the social regulation of the process of production and distributionFROM of products, MARX the horrors, misery, ruin, and brutalisation caused by the imperialist war—all these factors transformTO the MAO present stage of capitalist development into an era of proletarian socialist revolution. That era has dawned. Only a proletarian socialist revolution can lead humanity out of the impasse which imperialism and imperialist wars have created. Whatever difficulties the revolution may have to encounter, whatever possible temporary setbacks or waves of counter-revolution it may have to contend with, the final victory of the proletariat is inevitable. Objective conditionsNOT make it theFOR urgent task of the day to prepare the proletariat in every way for the revolution and resolutely break with the bourgeois perversion of socialism, which hasCOMMERCIAL taken the upper hand in the official Social- Democratic parties in the form of a social-chauvinist trend (that is,DISTRIBUTION socialism in words, chauvinism in fact, or the use of the “defend your country” slogan to cover up defence of capitalist interests in imperialist wars), and also in the form of a Centre trend (i.e., unprincipled, helpless vacillation between social-chauvinism and revolutionary internationalist-proletarian struggle)* for the conquest of political power in order to carry out the economic and political measures which are the sum and substance of the socialist revolution. * * * * The text from “for the revolution...” to “proletarian struggle)” is crossed out in the MS.—Ed. 420 V. I. LENIN

The fulfilment of this task, which calls for the fullest trust, the closest fraternal ties, and direct unity of revolutionary action on the part of the working class in all the advanced countries, is impossible without an immediate break in principle with the bourgeois perversion of socialism, which has gained the upper hand among the leadership of the great majority of the official Social-Democratic parties. Such a perversion is, on the one hand, the social-chauvinist trend, socialism in word and chauvinism in deed, the defence of the predatory interests of “one’s own” national bourgeoisie under the guise of “defence of one’s country”; and, on the other hand, the equally wide international trend of the so-called Centre, which stands for unity with the social-chauvinists and for the preservation or correction of the bankrupt Second International, and which vacillates between social-chauvinism and the internationalist revolutionary struggle of the proletariat for the achievement of a socialist system. * * * The experience of the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917, which created the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies and a number of similar organisations, thereby confirmed the experience of the Paris Commune, which consisted in the fact that the proletariat must have a state for the period of transition to socialism, but this state* must not be a conventional type of state, but the immediate, massive and wholesale organisation of the armed workers to substitute for the old instruments of administration: the standing army, the police and the civil service. Explanation to the proletariat of the tasks of such a state—capable both of consolidating the gains of the revolution in general and of ensuring the most peaceful and balanced transition to socialism—

* The text from “The experience of the Russian revolutions...” to “but this state” is crossed out in the MS. The end of the paragraph was left standing inadvertently; it was written on a separate sheet, at the bottom of which there is a note in an unknown hand: “Add: Apparatus for the regulation of production is ready in the form of trusts and concentration of banks” (see Lenin’s insertion in the “Proposed Amendments to the Doctrinal, Political and Other Sections of the Programme”, present edition, Vol. 24, p. 459).—Ed. SEVENTH (APRIL) ALL-RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.(B.) 421 must constitute one of the principal tasks of the proletarian party alongside its struggle against the representatives of the bankrupt Second (1889-1914) International, who have distorted Marxism and betrayed socialism on the dictatorship of the proletariat question. Monopoly capitalism, which has been developing into state-monopoly capitalism in a number of advanced countries with especial rapidity during the war, means gigantic socialisation of production and, consequently, complete preparation of the objective conditions for the establishment of a socialist society.* * * * In the minimum programme, the whole beginning (from the words “On the path” down to §1) should be crossed out, and replaced by the following: In Russia at the present moment, when the Provisional Government, which is part and parcel of the landowner and capitalist class and enjoys the confidence—necessarily unstable—of the broad mass of the petty-bourgeois population, has undertaken to convene a Constituent Assembly, the immediate duty of the party of the proletariat is to fight for a political system which will best guarantee economic progress and the rights of the people in general, and make possible the least painful transition to socialism in particular. The party is fighting and helping the masses to wage an immediate struggle for a democratic republic, starting the implementation of the freedoms by the masses’ organisation on their own, from below, and working for the establishment not of a bourgeois parliamentary republic, with its special guarantees both for the domination of the capitalists and for the possibility of using force against the masses through the retention of the old organs of mass oppression: the police, the standing army and the civil service, but of a more democratic proletarian-peasant republic in which the retention of these organs of oppression is impossible and inadmissible, and where the state power belongs directly to the workers and peasants who are armed to a man. * The text from “Monopoly Capitalism...” to “socialist society” is crossed out in the MS.—Ed. 422 V. I. LENIN

§1. Supreme power in the state must be vested entirely in the people’s representatives, who shall be elected by the people and be subject to recall at any time, and who shall constitute a single popular assembly, a single chamber. §2. Add: Proportional representation at all elections; all delegates and elected officials, without exception, to be subject to recall at any time upon the decision of a majority of their electors. §3. Add: No supervision or control from above over the decisions and acts of regional and local self-governments. §9 to read: The right of all member nations of the state to freely secede and form independent states. The republic of the Russian nation must attract other nations or nationalities not by force, but exclusively by voluntary agreement on the question of forming a common state. The unity and fraternal alliance of the workers of all countries are incompatible with the use of force, direct or indirect, against other nationalities. §11 to read: Judges and all other officials, both civil and military, to be elected by the people with the right to recall any of them at any time by decision of a majority of their electors. Salaries to all officials to be not above the wages of a skilled worker, 300-500 rubles, depending on the number of family members and their earnings; unconditional prohibition for officials to supplement their salaries with income from other sources. §12to read: The police and standing army to be replaced by the universally armed people; workers and other employees to receive regular wages from the capitalists for the time devoted to public service in the people’s militia. * * * §14 of the political section, §5 and others of the economic section should be, like the whole of the economic section, specially re-examined by commissions consisting of trade union workers and teachers. SEVENTH (APRIL) ALL-RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.(B.) 423

After the fiscal clause of the programme (following the words “on incomes and inheritances”) insert: The high level of development of capitalism already achieved in banking and in the trustified branches of industry, on the one hand, and the economic disruption caused by the imperialist war, everywhere evoking a demand for state and public control of the production and distribution of all staple products, on the other, induce the party to demand the nationalisation of the banks, syndicates (trusts), etc. * * * The agrarian programme should be replaced by an agrarian resolution (see its text separately)* or rewritten in accordance with it.** * * * The concluding part of the programme (the last two paragraphs from the words: “In the endeavour to achieve”) to be entirely deleted.

FOR THE PROGRAMME BETTER VARIANT*** The party of the proletariat cannot rest content with a bourgeois parliamentary democratic republic, which throughout the world preserves and strives to perpetuate the monarchist instruments for the oppression of the masses, namely, the police, the standing army, and the privileged bureaucracy. The party fights for a more democratic workers’ and peasants’ republic, in which the police and the standing army will be abolished and replaced by the universally armed people, by a people’s militia; all officials will be not only elective, but also subject to recall at any time upon the * See “Resolution on the Agrarian Question”, present edition, Vol. 24, pp. 290-93).—Ed. ** See “Materials Relating to the Revision of the Party Pro- gramme”, ibid., p. 463.—Ed. *** This variant is included in the “Proposed Amendments to the Doctrinal, Political and Other Sections of the Programme” (see present edition, Vol. 24, p. 461).—Ed. 424 V. I. LENIN demand of a majority of the electors; all officials, without exception, will be paid at a rate not exceeding the average wage of a competent worker; parliamentary representative institutions will be gradually replaced by Soviets of people’s representatives (from various classes and professions, or from various localities), functioning as both legislative and executive bodies. Written not later than April 28 (May 11), 1917 First published in 1933 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXI the original 7 REPORT ON THE QUESTION REVISING THE PARTY PROGRAMME APRIL 28 (MAY 11) NEWSPAPER REPORT The commission has proposed the adoption of a resolution on the direction in which the Party programme should be changed: 1) evaluation of imperialism in connection with the approaching social revolution; 2) amending the paragraphs on the state—the state without a standing army, a police, or a privileged bureaucracy; 3) elimination of what is out of date in the political programme (about tsarism, etc.); 4) altering the minimum programme; 5) rewriting the economic section of the programme, which is obviously out of date, and the school section of the programme; 6-7) inserting demands flowing from the changing structure of capitalist society (nationalisation of the syndi- cated branches of industry, etc.); 8) adding an analysis of the trends in socialism. Pravda No. 45 Printed from the May 13 (April 30), 1917 Pravda text 8 REPORT ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION APRIL 28 (MAY 11) NEWSPAPER REPORT Comrade Lenin pointed to the landed estates, and the incredible jumble of arable fields brought about by the haphazard administration on the peasant land, first of the SEVENTH (APRIL) ALL-RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.(B.) 425 bailiffs, then of the 1861 magistrates and finally of the Stolypin officials,541 as the principal cause of the enslaving feudal relations remaining in the countryside. Hence, the natural desire on the part of the peasants to “clear the land”, to have all the land re-allotted, a desire which is expressed in the saying that “all the land is God’s”. The peasant-holder cannot be reconciled with the obstacles which, in the new conditions of capitalist trade, he finds intolerable. That is proved by the bill submitted by the 104 peasant deputies in the First and Second Dumas.542 The Socialist-Revolutionaries have themselves admitted that in that Bill the “petty-economy ideology” prevails over the “principles of equalisation”. The peasant wants to own his land, but wants it allotted in accordance with the new demands of the commodity economy. Even where some peasants appear to accept the principle of egalitarian land tenure, their view of it is different from that of the S.R. intellectuals. The statistical result of the distribution of the landowner and peasant holdings in Russia comes to the following figures: 300 peasant families hold 2,000 des- siatines, and one landowner holds as much. Their demand for “equalisation” clearly contains the idea of equalising the rights of the 300 and the one. The necessity of land nationalisation, as a fully bourgeois and highly progressive measure, has been prepared by the preceding development of the land economy in Russia and the development of the world market. The war has sharpened every contradiction. Just now, the immediate transfer of the land to the peasants is a demand powerfully dictated by the needs of wartime. Shingaryov & Co. actually intensify the crisis by inviting the peasants to wait for a Constituent Assembly (whereas the sowing must be done right away), thereby threatening to turn the grain shortage into a real famine. They are trying to force on the peasants a bourgeois-bureaucratic solution of the agrarian question. Meanwhile, there is no time to wait for the legalisation of landownership, because the crisis is approaching in gigantic strides. The peasants have already displayed a revolutionary initiative—in Penza Gubernia they have been taking over the landowners’ live and dead stock for common use. It goes without saying that our 426 V. I. LENIN

Party stands only for the organised take-over of lands and implements because that is necessary for increasing production, while any damage to implements inflicts harm above all on the peasants and workers themselves. On the other hand, we stand for the separate organisation of agricultural workers.

Pravda No. 45 Printed from the May 13 (April 30), 1917 Pravda text

9 REMARK IN THE DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION APRIL 28 (MAY 11)

Solovyov believes that the most essential should be stated at the head of the resolution: that the Party demands the nationalisation of the land. This amendment is not very essential. I put nationalisation in third place, because initiative and revolutionary action must come first, while nationalisation is a law expressing the people’s will. I motion against.

First published in 1925 in the book Printed from a Petrogradskaya obshchegorodskaya typewritten i Vserossiiskaya konferentsii copy of the R.S.D.R.P.(B.). v aprele 1917 goda minutes 10 SPEECH ON THE NATIONAL QUESTION APRIL 29 (MAY 12) NEWSPAPER REPORT Comrade Lenin recalled that the Polish Social-Democrats were against the right to national self-determination in 1903, when the question was not raised in the prospect of a socialist revolution. The specific character of their stand on the national question is due to their peculiar position in Poland; the tsarist oppression fed the nationalistic passions of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois sections of Poland. The Polish Social-Democrats had to go through a desperate struggle against the “socialists” (P.P.S) who were even prepared to have a European war for the sake of Poland’s liberation, and only they, the Polish Social-Democrats, SEVENTH (APRIL) ALL-RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.(B.) 427 spreading the feelings of international solidarity among the Polish workers, led them closer to the workers of Russia. However, their attempt to impose a rejection of the right to self-determination on the socialists of the oppressor nations is extremely erroneous and in the event of success could result in nothing more than the adoption of a chauvinistic stand by the Russian Social-Democrats. By rejecting the oppressed nations’ right to self-determination, the socialists of the oppressor nations become chauvinists, giving support to their own bourgeoisie. Russian socialists must work to secure freedom to secede for the oppressed nations, while the socialists of the oppressed nations must maintain freedom to integrate, both taking formally different (essentially the same) ways towards the same goal: the international organisation of the proletariat. Those who say that the national question has been solved within the bourgeois system tend to forget that it has been solved (but not in every case) only in the west of Europe, where the purity of the population is sometimes as high as 90 per cent, but not in the east, where the purity of the population is limited to only 43 per cent. Finland’s example shows that the national question is in practice on the order of the day and that the alternative is support for the imperialist bourgeoisie or the duty of international solidarity, which does not allow of any violation of the will of the oppressed nations. The Mensheviks, who invited the Finnish Social-Democrats to “wait” until the Constituent Assembly and settle the question of autonomy together with it, actually spoke out in the spirit of the Russian imperialists. Pravda No. 46 Printed from the May 15 (2 ), 1917 Pravda text 11 SPEECH ON THE SITUATION WITHIN THE INTERNATIONAL AND THE TASKS OF THE R.S.D.L.P.(B.) APRIL 29 (MAY 12) NEWSPAPER REPORT Comrade Lenin motioned the proposal for a declaration that the R.S.D.L.P. remained within the Zimmerwald bloc only for the purpose of information, and is, consequently, 428 V. I. LENIN withdrawing from it. Experience has shown, he said, that it is useless to remain in the bloc. In many countries, Zim- merwald has even become a drag on the forward movement. The social-chauvinists are using it as a cover.

Pravda No. 46 Printed from the May 15 (2 ), 1917 Pravda text

12 REMARKS IN THE DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION ON THE CURRENT SITUATION APRIL 29 (MAY 12)

1 Question from the floor. Does control over the syndicates and banks imply measures recommended only on a state-wide scale or are such measures as control over private enterprises, etc., also included?

No, that is not here, because this living practice has been given expression in another resolution where it is in a better perspective.* This particular resolution deals with another subject—the steps to be taken towards socialism.

2 Solovyov motions an amendment: a few words about the characteristic of the state in this transition period—that is very essential, because it determines the overall direction of the activities of the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies....

Lenin objects to Comrade Solovyov’s amendment: In some resolutions we keep coming up against concrete definitions. The Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies can operate without the police, because they have their armed soldiers. The Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies are institutions which can substitute for the old civil service. The old agrarian programme ...** has not been realised, but we should say: “The Party demands a peasant-proletari-

* See present edition, Vol. 24, p. 295.—Ed. ** One word is illegible in the minutes.—Ed. TOO GROSS A LIE 429 an republic without a police, a standing army or a civil service.” Consequently, the conference has predetermined this issue,* so all we have to do now is to formulate. First published in 1925 in the book Printed from a Petrogradskaya obshchegorodskaya typewritten i Vserossiiskaya konferentsii copy of the R.S.D.R.P.(B.). v aprele 1917 goda minutes

OUTLINE OF UNIDENTIFIED SPEECH AT A MEETING The revolution has been carried out by the Petrograd workers. The revolution has not stopped, it is just starting. Petrograd has awakened Russia. Petrograd has liberated her. The great cause of the Petrograd workers. The Soviet of Soldiers’ and Workers’ Deputies will subsequently take power and do away with war and the rule of capital! What the Petrograd workers have started, the soldiers’ fraternisation at the front will continue. Fraternal alliance of workers of all countries. Revolutionary alliance. Long live the Russian revolution! Long live the world socialist revolution! N. Lenin April 25, 1917** First published in 1933 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXI notes in an unknown hand, revised and enlarged by Lenin

TOO GROSS A LIE

The sage Rabochaya Gazeta has assured its readers that Plekhanov and Lenin are allies because both oppose the Stockholm conference of the social-chauvinists. Rabochaya Gazeta confines itself to issuing a few shouts, saying not a word about our arguments in substance, and keeping * See present edition, Vol. 24, p. 280.—Ed. ** The last two sentences, the date and the signature are in Lenin’s hand.—Ed. 430 V. I. LENIN silent about the fact that this conference is a screen for capitalist diplomats! This is a cheap trick! Marxists must tell the people the truth and expose the tricks of the diplomats operating through the social- chauvinists. No Marxist will allow himself, as Rabochaya Gazeta does, to keep silent about the fact that the refusal of the French social-chauvinists means a desire on the part of the Anglo-French and Russian bourgeoisie to drag out the war until Germany’s total defeat.

Pravda No. 43Printed from the May 11 (April 28), 1917Pravda text

AN UNFINISHED AUTOBIOGRAPHY543 Comrades! The Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Sol- diers’ Deputies has transmitted to me your letter of April 24, 1917. In it you ask about my origin, where I had been, whether I had been exiled and what for. In what manner I returned to Russia and what is my activity at the present time, i.e., whether it (this activity) is doing you good or harm. I reply to all these questions, except the last one, because it is for you to judge whether or not my activity is doing you any good. My name is Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov. I was born in Simbirsk on April 10, 1870. In the spring of 1887, my elder brother Alexander was executed by Alexan- der III for an attempt on his life (March 1, 1887). In December 1887, I was arrested for the first time and expelled from Kazan University for students’ disturbances; I was then banished from Kazan. In December 1895, I was arrested for the second time for Social-Democratic propaganda among the workers of St. Petersburg....* Written not earlier than May 4 (17), 1917 First published on April 16, 1927 Printed from in Pravda No. 86 the original * Here the MS. breaks off.—Ed. REPORT AT MEETING OF PETROGRAD ORGANISATION 431

REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF THE SEVENTH (APRIL) ALL-RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.(B.) AT A MEETING OF THE PETROGRAD ORGANISATION MAY 8 (21), 1917 544

Comrade Lenin begins by saying that the conference met at an extraordinary time: there is now a revolution in Russia and an unprecedented war all over the world. Consequently, if we are to understand the decisions of our conference we must first of all understand the kind of war we are waging and who began it, what kind of revolution we have carried out and the kind of revolution that lies ahead of us. The war was not started by the workers and peasants: neither the Russian, the German, the French, the Italian, the Belgian, nor the British workers and peasants started this war. The war was started and is being continued by the capitalists of the world: the British capitalists and their friends, the French, the Russian and the Italian capitalists, against the German capitalists and their friends, the Austrian capitalists. What is this war being fought for? Is it being fought for the emancipation or for the interests of the workers and peasants? No, it is not. The purpose of the war is plunder and a division of foreign lands—that is what makes the capitalists shout about the war to a victorious end. Tsar Nicholas, as big a brigand as Wilhelm, concluded secret predatory treaties with the British and French capitalists; these treaties are not being published as otherwise the whole people would realise the fraud, and the war would quickly be over. That is why our resolution on the war flatly calls this war a predatory imperialist war. How, then, can an end be put to this world-wide slaughter? Can it be ended by someone pulling out of it? No, it cannot. It cannot because the war is being fought not by two states but by many, and because the capitalists can end the war only for a time in order to prepare for a new one. That is the kind of peace no worker or peasant wants, 432 V. I. LENIN whoever he may be, a German, a Frenchman or a Russian. Who, then, can end the war? The war can be ended only by the workers and peasants, not of Russia alone, but of the whole world. The workers and peasants of the world have the same interests: struggle against the capitalists and the landowners. That is why, only by uniting, the workers and peasants of the world can put an end to this war. That is why we Bolsheviks are against a separate peace, i.e., against a peace only between Russia and Germany. A separate peace is a stupidity, because it fails to settle the basic issue, the struggle against the capitalists and the landowners. How, then, are the workers and peasants of the whole world to unite? The war is in their way. The Russian revolution has toppled the autocracy and has given the Russian people unprecedented freedom, which is unmatched among any people of the world. But has it settled the basic question of Russian life, the question of land? No, because the land is still in the hands of the landowners. Why is that so? Because the people who overthrew the tsar handed over power not only into the hands of their elected representatives—peasants and workers, the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, but also into the hands of the Provisional Government. The Provisional Government, let us note, consists of capitalists, landowners and those who sincerely or hypocritically say that Russia can be saved only hand in hand with the landowners. But the landowners refuse to give land to the peasants, the capitalists refuse to give up their profits from the war and the plunder of foreign lands. That is why we Bolsheviks do not support the Provision- al Government, and do not advise socialists to take ministerial office. Socialist ministers can do no more than lend their names to cover up plunder and conquest. And they are already doing so. They have entered the government and have joined the capitalists in saying: this war is not only a defensive, but also an offensive one, and the peasants will not get their land now, but after the convocation of the Con- stituent Assembly. REPORT AT MEETING OF PETROGRAD ORGANISATION 433

That is why we are against the Provisional Government and recognise only our own government: the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. There is no better government, the people have not yet created one, and you can’t invent one. Why, in that case, has this government of ours decided to give support to the Provisional Government consisting of capitalists, landowners and socialists, who do not want to give land to the people now and preach an offensive? Because we now have in the Soviets of Workers’ and Sol- diers’ Deputies a majority of peasant-soldiers who do not understand what each of the parties wants in practice. Hence, our task is patiently to explain to the workers and peasants that everything—the end of the war, land for the peasants, and real struggle against the capitalists, not in words, but in deeds—will be secured only when the whole people comes to realise not from books, but from its own experience that only full power for the workers and peasants, only the power of the Soviets of Workers’, Peasants’ and Soldiers’ Deputies can help to start a resolute struggle for peace, for land and for socialism. You cannot disregard the people. Only dreamers and plotters believed that a minority could impose their will on a majority. That was what the French revolutionary Blanqui thought, and he was wrong. When the majority of the people refuse, because they do not yet understand, to take power into their own hands, the minority, however revolutionary and clever, cannot impose their desire on the majority of the people. From this flow our actions. We Bolsheviks must patiently and perseveringly explain our views to the workers and peasants. Each of us must forget our old view of our work, each, without waiting for the arrival of an agitator, a propagandist, a more knowledgea- ble comrade who will explain everything—each of us must become all in one: agitator, propagandist and Party organiser. That is the only way we can get the people to understand our doctrine, to think over their experience and really take power into their own hands. First published in 1927 Printed from the in Zapiski Instituta Lenina Zapiski text (Transactions of the Lenin Institute), Vol. I 434 V. I. LENIN

PLAN OF RESOLUTION ON ECONOMIC MEASURES FOR COMBATING THE DISLOCATION

1. A collapse is imminent. 2. Neither a bureaucratic nor a bourgeois solution is possible. 3. Workers’ control must be, first, really working- class (three-quarters of the votes of workers). 4. ””””developed into regulation. 5. ””””extended to all financial operations and the financial side of the business in general. 6. Salvation from the collapse unquestionably demands that the revolutionary measures should be started with the expropriation of the biggest and big capital. 7. This is to be continued by revolutionary measures: the organisation of universal labour service through the workers’ militia... (free workers’ service in the militia over and above their 8 hours of work). 8. Switch of manpower to the production of coal and raw materials and to transport....

& 6 b i s Organisation of exchange of grain for implements, footwear, clothes....

& 9. Switch of manpower from bombs to useful products.

& Economy of resources.... & Universal labour service must yield the utmost and the strictest economy of resources and manpower.

Written before May 25 (June 7 ), 1917 First published in 1925 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany IV the original STATEMENT OF FACT 435

INSERTION FOR N. K. KRUPSKAYA’S ARTICLE “A PAGE FROM THE HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC LABOUR PARTY”545 On Tuesday, May 9, more than 200 émigrés, travelling across Germany, arrived from Switzerland. Among them were the Menshevik leader Martov, the Socialist-Revolutionary leader Natanson and others. This transit has provided fresh evidence that there is no other reliable way from Switzerland, except via Germany. Izvestia Petrogradskogo Sovieta Rabochikh i Soldatskikh Deputatov (No. 32 of April 5) carries a report by Lenin and Zinoviev about their trip across Germany, giving the names of the socialists of two neutral countries (Switzerland and Sweden) who certified by their signatures that the trip across Germany was undertaken of necessity and that it did not involve relations with the German Government which were in any way reprehensible.

Soldatskaya Pravda No. 21 Printed from May 26 (13), 1917 the original

STATEMENT OF FACT CONCERNING THE COMMISSION OF THE NEWSPAPER VPERYOD AT A MEETING OF THE ST. PETERSBURG R.S.D.L.P.(B.) COMMITTEE MAY 30 (JUNE 12), 1917

Concerning Comrade Tomsky’s reference to the 1906 workers press commission and its complete failure, I state that this reference is factually incorrect and that the commission of the newspaper Vperyod 546 (headed by A. A. Bog- danov and others) was undoubtedly useful.

First published in 1927 in the book Printed from Pervy legalny Peterburgsky a typewritten komitet bolshevikov v 1917 godu copy of the (First Legal Petersburg Committee minutes of Bolsheviks in 1917) 436 V. I. LENIN

SPEECH AT A SITTING OF THE BOLSHEVIK GROUP OF THE FIRST ALL-RUSSIA CONGRESS OF SOVIETS OF WORKERS’ AND SOLDIERS’ DEPUTIES MAY 31 (JUNE 13), 1917

BRIEF NEWSPAPER REPORT

On behalf of the Central Committee, Lenin greets all internationalist Social-Democrats without distinction of group affiliation. The speaker goes on to the question of how the European war can be eliminated. It then turns out that he does not see the settlement of the European crisis in such optimistic colours as A. Lunacharsky.547 He says that the “without annexations” formula does not at all mean any desire to return Europe to the “status quo ante”. We believe that “without annexations” also means without the seizures carried out before the war. We take this formula to mean giving the peoples complete freedom to secede from one state and join another. But it is impossible to implement this formula without a socialist revolution, which is why there is no way out of the European war except a world-wide revolution. Referring to fraternisation, Lenin says: the spontaneous fraternisation will not settle the question of peace, but we regard it as the cornerstone of our revolutionary work. Fraternisation does not in itself solve the question, but then no other measure alone decides the revolution until it leads to one. What is a strike or a demonstration? They are after all only a link in the entire chain of the revolutionary struggle. We are being told that this fraternisation has worsened the situation on the other fronts. That is not true. It has created a virtual armistice on our front and has caused small changes on the Western front. But in whose favour? In favour of Britain and France. On the other hand, Britain has scored a great success in Asia: she has gobbled up Baghdad. The suspension of the fighting on our front has been brought about by revolutionary fraternisation, against which Kerensky is waging a war, and against which an offensive signed by the Mensheviks has been announced. DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR A CONFERENCE 437

We must make fraternisation conscious, we must see that it is transformed into an exchange of ideas, that it is carried over to the other fronts, that it kindles a revolution on the other side of the trenches. On the question of regulating industry, the speaker says: since February 28, the government has done nothing to cut down the industrialists’ profits. The other day we read about the establishment of a commission consisting of several ministers led by Skobelev to work out control measures. But we had commissions under the tsar, they are nothing but a swindle. The speaker says there is need immediately to take over the landed estates, and ends his speech by stating that the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies must either take all the power or die an inglo- rious death. Notes are being passed to the speaker from every side. Within a short time they number 20. The first of them asks whether the draft reinforcements should be sent to the front. Replying to the question, Lenin says: under the tsarist power we had to go into the army and work there. Lieb- knecht put on a uniform to conduct agitation against the war. It is naive to think that the war can be abolished by separate anarchic action.

Novaya Zhizn No. 37, Printed from the June 1 (14), 1917 Novaya Zhizn text

DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR A CONFERENCE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF DISTRICT COMMITTEES AND ARMY UNITS OF PETROGRAD TOGETHER WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE C.C. AND THE P.C. JUNE 10 (23), 1917

Having studied the resolutions of the Congress of Soviets and other organisations, carried today in Izvestia Petrograd- skogo Sovieta, and also the C.C. resolution published in Pravda, concerning the observance of the ban on demonstrations for three days— — having studied these resolutions and discussed the state of affairs, 438 V. I. LENIN

resolves:

In view of the fact that the Congress of Soviets and the Executive Committee of the All-Russia Soviet of Peasants’ Deputies have made their straightforward statement in their appeal: “We know that concealed forces of the counter-revolution want to take advantage of your demonstration” — in view of this it is necessary to admit that we have imagined the counter-revolution to be much weaker, for we have no knowledge as yet of what the Congress of Soviets knows; — that, consequently, the struggle against the counter- revolution is an even more urgent item on the order of the day; — that the C.C. resolution on abiding by the direct ban on demonstrations for three days is correct; — that it is necessary....*

Written on June 10 (23), 1917 First published in 1959 Printed from in Lenin Miscellany XXXVI the original

ON THE GRIMM AFFAIR

We are being asked in what sense we saw Grimm’s behaviour as being “ambiguous”. We reply—for readers who have not had the opportunity of securing the issue of the newspaper Volya Naroda,548 which was precisely indicated—that the protocol we signed (we would have willingly reprinted it, but for the lack of space in Pravda) speaks only of Grimm’s attitude to Hoffmann, the bourgeois minister of the same neutral country (Switzerland).

Pravda No. 75 Printed from the June 20 ( 7), 1917 Pravda text

* Here the MS. breaks off.—Ed. REPORT ON THE CURRENT SITUATION 439

SHAME!

Here is what Mr. Stan. Volsky, a leader writer of Novaya Zhizn,549 has talked himself into today: “...While denying the right of the big nations to enslave the small nationalities, socialism has never recommended the opposite course of action: enslavement of the big nations by the small nationalities. But it is precisely to this kind of violence against the will of the all- Russia democracy, to a denial of joint revolutionary democratic work, a substitution of national hostility for the class struggle, that the programme, or at any rate the tactics, of the Ukrainian Rada boils down....” There you see where the swings of the Novaya Zhizn petty-bourgeois chatterboxes are taking them—straight to the Black-Hundred reaction! It is after all only the Men- shikovs yesterday and the Katkovs the day before yesterday who could say that the Ukrainians’ desire to have their own sejm, their own ministers, their own army, their own finances and other things was “enslavement” of the Rus- sian people! A foul Great-Russian chauvinism, touched up with sweet quasi-Marxist words, such is the sermon of Minister V. Chernov, Mr. Volsky and Rabochaya Gazeta. Pravda No. 83Printed from the June 29 ( 16), 1917Pravda text

REPORT ON THE CURRENT SITUATION AT THE ALL-RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF FRONT AND REAR MILITARY ORGANISATIONS OF THE R.S.D.L.P.(B.) JUNE 20 (JULY 3), 1917550 BRIEF NEWSPAPER REPORT At the morning sitting, Lenin gave a report on the current situation. He noted the difference between the situation today and that during the Party’s April Conference. At that time, the stand of the various socialist parties had still hardly crystallised. Only now, in the present conditions, and in the light of the events that have just taken place, has the real political face of the Mensheviks and the S.R.s been revealed. But the petty bourgeoisie, without being 440 V. I. LENIN socialist, may turn out to be really democratically minded. Viewing the S.R. and Menshevik masses from that standpoint, we must give them credit for consistent democratism. But that cannot be said of their leaders, which is why we find that there is a yawning gulf between the S.R. and the Menshevik masses, on the one hand, and their leaders, on the other. The leaders of these masses have been gradually shedding not only their socialism, but their democratism as well. This will be seen in the attitude of the socialist ministers to the three vital issues of the moment. On the question of land, the socialist section of the government has clearly diverged from the views of the peasantry, and is helping the landowners to keep their lands at their disposal. The second touchstone of the socialist ministers’ democratism is their attitude to local self- government. It is an elementary democratic proposition that the local power must be elected by the people themselves, but on this point there have been numerous conflicts between the Provisional Government and the local organs of self-government, and the socialist section of the ministry has been an active fighter against these truly democratic principles. Finally, the third question is the offensive. The socialist Kerensky has managed to secure what the patent imperialist Guchkov had been unable to do. We revolutionary Social-Democrats must direct our activity towards raising the class consciousness of the democratic masses. That is why we must relentlessly expose these former leaders of petty-bourgeois democracy, pointing out to democracy the only way along which the revolutionary proletariat will march ahead of it.

Novaya Zhizn No. 54,Printed from the June 21 (July 4), 1917Novaya Zhizn text

THE POLITICAL SITUATION551 (FOUR THESES) 1. The counter-revolution has become organised and consolidated, and has actually taken state power into its hands.552 The complete organisation and consolidation of the counter-revolution consists in a combination of its three THE POLITICAL SITUATION 441 main forces, a combination excellently conceived and already put into practice: (1) The Constitutional-Democratic Party, i.e., the real leader of the organised bourgeoisie, has, by withdrawing from the Cabinet, confronted it with an ultimatum, thus clearing the way for the Cabinet’s overthrow by the counter-revolution; (2) The General Staff and the military leaders, with the deliberate or semi-deliberate assistance of Kerensky, whom even the most prominent Socialist-Revolutionaries now call a Cavaignac, have seized actual state power and have proceeded to shoot down revolutionary units at the front, disarm the revolutionary troops and workers in Petrograd and Moscow, suppress unrest in Nizhny Novgorod, arrest Bolsheviks and ban their papers, not only without trial, but even without a government order. At present, basic state power in Russia is virtually a military dictatorship. This fact is still obscured by a number of institutions that are revolutionary in words but powerless in deeds. Yet it is so obvious and fundamental a fact that, without understanding it, one cannot understand anything about the political situation. (3) The Black-Hundred-monarchist and bourgeois press, which has switched from hounding Bolsheviks to hounding the Soviets, the “incendiary” Chernov, etc., has indicated with the utmost clarity that the true meaning of the policy of military dictatorship, which now reigns supreme and is supported by the Cadets and monarchists, is preparation for disbanding the Soviets. Many of the leaders of the S.R.s and Mensheviks, i.e., the present majority in the Soviets, have admitted and expressed this during the past few days, but true to their petty-bourgeois nature, they shrug off this formidable reality with meaningless high-sounding phrases. 2. The leaders of the Soviets and of the Socialist -Revolu- tionary and Menshevik parties, headed by Tsereteli and Chernov, have completely betrayed the cause of the revolution by putting it in the hands of the counter-revolutionaries and by turning themselves, their parties and the Soviets into mere fig-leaves of the counter-revolution. Proof of this is that the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks have betrayed the Bolsheviks and have tacitly agreed to close down their papers without daring to tell 442 V. I. LENIN the people plainly and openly that they are doing so and why. By sanctioning the disarming of the workers and the revolutionary regiments, they have deprived themselves of all real power. They have turned into the most loud-mouthed ranters who help the reaction to “divert” the people’s attention until it is finally ready to disband the Soviets. It is impossible to understand anything at all about the present political situation without realising this complete and final bankruptcy of the S.R.s and Mensheviks and the present majority in the Soviets and without realising that their “Directory” and other masquerades are an absolute sham. 3. All hopes for a peaceful development of the Russian revolution have vanished for good. This is the objective situation: either complete victory for the military dictatorship, or victory for the workers’ armed uprising; the latter victory is only possible when it coincides with a deep mass upheaval against the government and the bourgeoisie caused by economic disruption and the prolongation of the war. The slogan “All Power to the Soviets!” was a slogan for peaceful development of the revolution which was possible in April, May, June, and up to July 5-9, i.e., up to the time when actual power passed into the hands of the military dictatorship. This slogan is no longer correct, for it does not take into account that power has changed hands and that the revolution has in fact been completely betrayed by the S.R.s and Mensheviks. Reckless actions, revolts, partial resistance, or hopeless hit-and-run attempts to oppose reaction will not help. What will help is a clear understanding of the situation, endurance and determination of the workers’ vanguard, preparation of forces for the armed uprising, for the victory of which conditions at present are extremely difficult, but still possible if the facts and trends mentioned in the thesis coincide. Let us have no constitutional or republican illusions of any kind, no more illusions about a peaceful path, no sporadic actions, no yielding now to provocation from the Black Hundreds and Cossacks. Let us muster our forces, reorganise them and resolutely prepare for the armed uprising, if the course of the crisis permits it on a really mass, country-wide scale. The transfer of land to the peasants is impossible at pres- LETTER OVER THE PUBLICATION OF LEAFLET 443 ent without an armed uprising, since the counter-revolutionaries, having taken power, have completely united with the landowners as a class. The aim of the insurrection can only be to transfer power to the proletariat, supported by the poor peasants, with a view to putting our Party programme into effect. 4.The party of the working class, without abandoning legal activity but never for a moment overrating it, must combine legal with illegal work, as it did in 1912-14. Don’t let a single hour of legal work slip by. But don’t cherish any constitutional or “peaceful” illusions. Form illegal organisations or cells everywhere and at once for the publication of leaflets, etc. Reorganise immediately, consistently, resolutely, all along the line. Act as we did in 1912-14, when we could speak about overthrowing tsarism by a revolution and an armed uprising, without at the same time losing our legal base in the Duma, the insurance societies, the trade unions, etc.

Written on July 10 (23), 1917 Published on August 2 (July 20),Printed from 1917 in Proletarskoye Dyelo No. 6the original Signed: W.

LETTER OVER THE PUBLICATION OF “LEAFLET ON THE CAPTURE OF RIGA”553 This leaflet cannot, of course, be published legally, but everything must be done to have it published illegally. It would be extremely stupid of us to jeopardise our legal newspapers (which are so terribly important for us, and which it has taken such a great effort to keep going) and fail to do what we had managed to do in 1912-14: to use our legal possibilities. We should neither print the article (leaflet) legally nor spoil it by rewriting it for legal publication. It would be not only stupid but base on our part to confine ourselves to the legal word, when its freedom has so drastically been curtailed by the government and is being further curtailed from day to day. I am aware that the sluggishness of our Bolsheviks is 444 V. I. LENIN great and that it will take a great deal of effort to secure the publication of illegal leaflets. But I shall go on insisting because those are the demands of life, the demands of the movement. We must issue illegally free leaflets and handbills which are not curtailed and which speak out at the top of their voice. They should be signed: “A group of persecuted Bolshe- viks”. We can confine ourselves to that signature or add below in small type: “The group of persecuted Bolsheviks consists of those Bolsheviks whom the government’s persecution has forced to work illegally.” Or: “The group of persecuted Bolsheviks consists of Bolsheviks whom the government’s persecution and withdrawal of press freedom have forced to publish free leaflets illegally, and to act outside the framework of the legal Bolshevik Party.”

LEAFLET ON THE CAPTURE OF RIGA

Workers, soldiers and all working people! The enemy troops have taken Riga. We have suffered another heavy defeat. The incredible calamities inflicted on the people by the war are being aggravated and dragged out. Why is the war being dragged out? The reason is still a division of the spoils between the capitalist brigands, the point at issue is still whether the German capitalist predators will retain Belgium, Serbia, Poland, Riga, etc., whether the British capitalist predators will retain Baghdad and the German colonies they have seized, whether the Russian capitalist predators will retain Armenia, etc. The Kerensky government, with the participation and support of the Mensheviks and the S.R.s, has been brazenly cheating the people, lulling them with empty talk about their desire for peace, talk which is not binding in any way, while actually dragging out the predatory war, and refusing to publish the secret treaties which the tsar concluded with the British and French capitalists for the enrichment of the Russian capitalists who had been promised Constantinople, Galicia and Armenia. Even under the Republic, the Russian people are shedding their blood for the fulfilment of the secret treaties, the predatory treaties between the capitalists. For months, the “republicans”, Kerensky, Skobelev, Chernov & Co., have been cheating the Russian workers and peasants, instead of abrogating the secret predatory treaties, instead of offering precise, clear-cut and fair peace terms to all the belligerent nations. Kerensky together with the Mensheviks and the S.R.s has cheated the people. Only a workers’ government can save the country, and safeguard it from the losses of the war and the plunder of the capitalist marauders. LETTER OVER THE PUBLICATION OF LEAFLET 445

In connection with the Riga defeat, the bourgeoisie is already anticipating the introduction of new harsh laws and strict disciplinary measures against soldiers, workers and peasants. Already the peasants are being deprived of their grain, while, through the blocking of workers’ control, the capitalists are allowed to retain their outrageously high profits and to safeguard their sacrosanct “commercial secrets”, which shield the bankers and millionaires from exposure. Meanwhile, the Mensheviks and the S.R.s, disgracefully crawling to the bourgeoisie, continue to give it their support and shout about the need to “leave off” “all party strife”, which means leaving full power in the hands of the capitalists, and the country’s continued plunder by them, and leaving them the “freedom” to protract the war.... Tens and hundreds of thousands of people have died in the offensive, which the Kerensky, Menshevik, and S.R. government started in June. Tens and hundreds of thousands will die in the protracted war, so long as the people continue to tolerate such a government. Only a workers’ government can save the country. It alone will not cheat the people, but will immediately offer to all countries precise, clear-cut and fair peace terms. The bourgeoisie has been trying to intimidate the people and create a panic, in an effort to get the ignorant people to believe that peace cannot be offered right away, as this would mean “losing Riga” and so on. That is cheating the people. Even if peace were to be negotiated by the governments, i.e., the governments safeguarding the sacred rights of the capitalists to their plundered wealth and seizures of foreign lands (annexations), even then the offer of peace would not mean abandonment of Riga. Riga is the booty of the German capitalist brigands. Armenia is the booty of the Russian capitalist brigands. When brigands negotiate on peace they either each keep their own booty or swap pieces of it. That is how all wars have ended and will end, so long as power remains in the hands of the capitalists. But we speak of a workers’ government which alone can offer just peace terms right away, and this has been stated hundreds of times by workers and peasants throughout Russia in their countless mandates and resolutions. These terms are: peace without annexations, i.e., without the seizure of foreign lands. This means: neither the Germans nor the Russians will be able forcibly, without the voluntary consent of the Poles, to integrate Poland or the Latvian Territory; neither the Turks nor the Russians will be able to seize Armenia, and so on. These just peace terms will at once be offered by a workers’ government to all the belligerent countries without exception. Until this has been done, until precise, clear-cut, formal proposals of peace have been made, until there has been an overthrow of the total power of the marauding capitalists, who are making hundreds of millions on war contracts, and so long as the secret predatory treaties remain intact— all talk of peace comes to nothing but gross and utterly shameless deception of the people. All the capitalist governments, including the Kerensky, S.R. and Menshevik government, have been practising this deception 446 V. I. LENIN of the people. They have all been mouthing phrases of peace, which are not binding in any way, no one has been offering any precise peace terms, no one has abrogated the secret treaties, and in fact everyone has continued to drag out the criminal predatory war over the capitalists’ profits, which is ruining the peoples. Down with the war! Down with the Kerensky, Menshevik and S.R. government, which is cheating the people, protracting the war, safeguarding the predatory interests of the capitalists, putting off the elections to the Constituent Assembly! Only a workers’ government supported by the poor peasants will offer peace, putting an end to the capitalist plunder, and give the working people bread and freedom. Let every worker and soldier explain to the people the need to overthrow the Kerensky government and set up a workers’ government.

Written after August 22 (September 4), 1917 First published in 1962 in Vol. 34Printed from of the Fifth Russian editiona typewritten of the Collected Workscopy

FROM THE THESES FOR A REPORT AT THE OCTOBER 8 CONFERENCE OF THE ST. PETERSBURG ORGANISATION, AND ALSO FOR A RESOLUTION AND INSTRUCTIONS TO THOSE ELECTED TO THE PARTY CONGRESS554 ON THE LIST OF CANDIDATES FOR THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY555

The list of candidates published by the Central Com- mittee has been compiled in an inadmissible manner and calls for the sharpest protest. The point is that there must be four or five times more workers in a peasant Constitu- ent Assembly, because they alone are capable of establishing close and intimate ties with the peasant deputies. It is absolutely inadmissible also to have an excessive number of candidates from among people who have but recently joined our Party and have not yet been tested (like Larin). In filling the list with such candidates who should first have worked in the Party for months and months, the C.C. has thrown wide open the door for careerists who scramble for seats in the Constituent Assembly. There is need for an urgent review and correction of the list. FROM THE THESES FOR A REPORT AT THE CONFERENCE 447

NOTE TO THESIS “ON THE LIST OF CANDIDATES FOR THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY”

It goes without saying that from among the mezhraion- tsi556 who have been hardly tested in proletarian work in our Party’s spirit, no one would contest the candidature of, say, Trotsky, for, first, upon his arrival, Trotsky at once took up an internationalist stand; second, he worked among the mezhraiontsi for a merger; third, in the difficult July days he proved himself equal to the task and a loyal supporter of the party of the revolutionary proletariat. Clearly, as much cannot be said about many of the new Party members entered on the list. Larin’s nomination is especially scandalous (apart from his being placed ahead of Petrovsky, Krylenko and others...). During the war, Larin helped the chauvinists, spoke on their behalf at the Swedish congress, and helped to print lies against the St. Petersburg workers and their boycott of the War Industries Committees. During the war, before the revolution, Larin did not once show himself to be a fighter for internationalism. Upon his return to Russia, Larin long helped the Mensheviks and even came out in the press with indecent attacks against our Party, in the Alexinsky spirit. Larin is well known for his “swings”: let us recall his pamphlet on the labour congress and on a merger with the S.R.s. Of course, there would be no need to recall all this, if Larin entered the Party with a desire to reform. But to get him into the Constituent Assembly within a week or so of his entry into the Party is in fact to transform the Party into the same kind of dirty stall for careerists as most of the European parties are.* The serious work in the Constituent Assembly will consist in establishing close, intimate ties with the peasants. Only workers who are in touch with peasant life are fit for this. To pack the Constituent Assembly with orators and

* What about M. N. Pokrovsky’s candidature? In 1907, he moved away from the Bolsheviks and remained on the sidelines for years. It would be a good thing if he came back for good. But this has first to be proved by long effort. 448 V. I. LENIN writers is to take the beaten track of opportunism and chauvinism. That is unworthy of the “Third Interna- tional”.

Written between September 29 and October 4 (October 2 and 17), 1917 First published in full in 1962 in Printed from a Vol. 34 of the Fifth Russian typewritten edition of the Collected Works copy

“THE LANDOWNERS HAVE HIT IT OFF WITH THE CADETS” That is not our expression. It was used by the newspaper Dyelo Naroda557 No. 170 of October 3, quoting the words of “a provincial worker” who described what had happened in Russia in the summer and autumn of 1917. Dyelo Naroda is known to be the chief official organ of the Socialist- Revolutionary Party. Former Minister Chernov is on its Editorial Board. The admission of such a paper is especially valuable. Here it is: “The landowners have hit it off with the Cadets, according to a provincial worker. In plainer language, this means that the landowners have found sympathy and support among some elements of the government in the centre and in the localities, that they have recov- ered from the first shock and have started to organise.... Attacks on the land committees have started and have been growing from day to day, first in the form of a cornucopia of complaints and wails about ‘robberies’, ‘arbitrary acts’, and ‘pogroms’.... The complaints were followed by restrictive circulars from above and judicial prosecution of the land committees, and in the localities close to the front, also by interference from the military authorities in the form of orders issued by General Kornilov. Even here, in Petrograd, the Ministry of Justice has also threatened to institute criminal proceedings against the Chief Land Committee. “The cancellation of pre-revolutionary leasehold contracts is the most frequent pretext for the commission for trial and the filing of civil suits. The landowners and all those who are with them have been saying in one voice: the law on contracts has not been rescinded, which means that all the contracts are still valid, and ‘no committees or private persons’ have the right to cancel them.... So the ‘unwary’ committees are being massively struck down by the old justice for cancelling the contracts and reducing the leasehold prices. The fact is, however, that such reductions are absolutely inevitable and hardly any contract has remained intact anywhere.” “THE LANDOWNERS HAVE HIT IT OFF WITH THE CADETS” 449

(The paper goes on to give the evidence of a “most moderate Professor Kablukov” who says that the short-term peasant tenant is sometimes “worse off than the serf....”)

“In these circumstances, cancellation of the shackling leasehold contracts, concluded before the revolution, far from being a crime, was a direct duty of the organs of power.... The effort to keep a section of the peasant tenants ‘worse off than the serfs’ at any price was a downright provocation to riot, a provocation which was the more criminal in that it was carried out exclusively in the interests of the class of feudal-minded landowners, and at a time when the republic and the whole people are suffering the greatest calamities.... It is no accident, after all, that pogroms have broken out and the ‘nests’ of the gentry are in flames precisely in Tambov Gubernia, where the number of committees put on trial is great....”

That is what is said in the newspaper Dyelo Naroda, the official organ of the ministerial party of S.R.s. These lines should be reprinted everywhere, issued as leaflets, and circulated in millions of copies among the peasants, because they contain proof, given by the S.R.s (Socialist-Revolutionaries) themselves and quoted by V. Chernov’s own paper, proof that the S.R.s have betrayed the peasants to the landowners, that the S.R. Party has betrayed the peasantry, and that if it has not also “hit it off” with the landowners, it has at any rate surrendered to them. The people must be given the chance to read and reread these lines. Every class-conscious peasant, soldier and worker must give thought to the meaning of these admis- sions. Seven months of the revolution have passed. Countless times the people have expressed their confidence in the S.R.s, have given them majorities at elections, and said to the S.R. Party: lead on, we entrust you with the leadership! Since March 1917, the S.R. Party in the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies has been operating in a bloc (alliance) with the Mensheviks, and has had a majority for months and months! Since May 6, members of the Party of S.R.s and Mensheviks have been and still are ministers and deputy ministers together with the “despicable Cadets”, alongside the “despicable Cadets”, in alliance with the “despicable Cadets”!! 450 V. I. LENIN

Dyelo Naroda has itself admitted the results of this coalition (alliance, agreement) with the despicable Cadets and the landowners. Seven months of the revolution, seven months of the democratic republic, seven months of S.R. and Menshevik domination in the Soviets have resulted in a “vast” number of members of the land committees put on trial—trial under the old justice, by the old courts, by the tsarist-landowner courts; they have resulted in peasant revolts in Tambov and other gubernias! That is the result of the peasants’ trusting the S.R. Par- ty. Meanwhile, the new draft land bill of the S.R. Minister S. L. Maslov shows again and again how the S.R.s have betrayed the peasants (see article by this author: “Socialist- Revolutionary Party Cheats the Peasants Once Again”*).

Written after October 20 (November 2), 1917 First published on October 24 Printed from the (November 6), 1917 in the newspaper Derevenskaya Derevenskaya Byednota No. 11 Byednota text

LETTER TO Y. M. SVERDLOV

To Comrade Sverdlov. I learnt only last night that Zinoviev had issued a written denial of his participation in Kamenev’s statement in Novaya Zhizn. Why then have you not sent me anything??? I sent all the letters about Kamenev and Zinoviev to C.C. members only.—You know this; is it not strange then that you seem to doubt it? It looks as if I will not be able to attend the Plenary Meeting, because “they are looking for me”. If you (&Stalin, Sokolnikov and Dzerzhinsky) demand a compromise on the Zinoviev and Kamenev affair,558 enter a proposal against me, to have the case referred to a Party court (the facts are clear that Zinoviev was also thwarting it deliberately); this will be a postponement.

* See present edition, Vol. 26, pp. 228-33.—Ed. LETTER TO Y. M. SVERDLOV 451

“Kamenev’s resignation has been accepted”? From the C.C.? Please let me have the text of his statement.

Cancellation of the Cossacks’ demonstration is a great victory.559 Hurrah! If we attack with all our strength, we shall fully win out in a few days! Best regards! Yours.

Written on October 22 or 23 (November 4 or 5 ), 1917 First published in 1957 in the book Printed from Oktyabrskoye vooruzhonnoye the original vosstaniye v Petrograd (October Armed Uprising in Petrograd), Moscow, U.S.S.R. Academy of Science Publishers

NOTES

455

1 The League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class was organised by Lenin in the autumn of 1895. It united about twenty Marxist workers’ circles in St. Petersburg. The work of the League was based on the principles of centralism and strict discipline. It was headed by a Central Group, which included V. I. Lenin, A. A. Vaneyev, P. K. Zaporozhets, G. M. Krzhizha- novsky, N. K. Krupskaya, L. Martov (Y. O. Tsederbaum), M. A. Silvin, and V. V. Starkov. Immediate guidance on every aspect of the work came from five members of this group led by Lenin. The organisation was subdivided into district groups connected with factories and plants through forward-looking, class- conscious workers (like I. V. Babushkin and V. A. Shelgunov). At the plants there were organisers for the collection of information and distribution of literature, and workers’ circles were set up at the major enterprises. The League was the first in Russia to bring together socialism and the working-class movement, going forward from the propaganda of Marxism among a small number of leading workers in circles to political agitation among broad masses of the proletariat. It guided the working-class movement, tying in the workers’ struggle for economic demands with the political struggle against tsarism. The influence of the League spread well beyond St. Peters- burg. On its initiative, the workers’ circles in Moscow, Kiev Yekaterinoslav and other cities and regions of Russia united into similar leagues. In December 1895, the tsarist government dealt the League a heavy blow: on the night of the 8th (20th), many of its leaders, including Lenin, were arrested. In response to the arrest, a leaflet was issued, formulating political demands and proclaiming the existence of the League. While in prison, Lenin continued to direct the League’s activities, sending out coded letters and leaflets, and wrote a pamphlet On Strikes (which is yet to be discovered) and “Draft and Expla- nation of the Social-Democratic Party Programme” (see present edition, Vol. 2, pp. 93-121). The importance of the League lay in the fact that, as Lenin said, it was the first important embryo of a revolutionary party relying on the working-class movement and directing the proletariats’ class struggle. “Communication on behalf of the ‘Stariki’ to the Members of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Work- ing Class” was written by Lenin in prison in 1896 as a warning 456 NOTES

to the League members at liberty against the provocateur N. Mikhailov. It was written between the lines of page 240 of N. I. Tezyakov’s book, Agricultural Workers and the Organisation of Sanitary Supervision over Them in Kherson Gubernia (1896), which Lenin was reading for his work The Development of Capi- talism in Russia. Apparently for reasons of secrecy, the manuscript contains a great number of abbreviations and is written in a very fine hand with a plain lead pencil poorly visible in places, which is why some of it has not been deciphered. p. 33 2 The student organisation bearing the name of “corporation” was set up in St. Petersburg University at the end of 1891 from students’ self-education circles. It united revolutionary-minded young people, but had no specified political programme and broke up within a few months. Its members were betrayed to the police by N. Mikhailov, who was one of its organisers but was connected with the secret police. p. 33

3 The Strike at the Voronin factory (a cotton-weaving manufactory owned by the merchant I. A. Voronin) was staged at the end of January 1894 and was caused by a cut in rates which led to a drop in wages. It continued for three days and ended in a victory for the workers: the rates were increased. Several workers, accused of being instigators, were arrested and deported from St. Peters- burg. p. 33 4 Narodovoltsi—members of the Narodnaya Volya (the People’s Will), a secret political organisation of Narodnik terrorists which arose in August 1879 as a result of the split within the Narodnik organisation known as Zemlya i Volya (Land and Freedom). The Narodnaya Volya was headed by an Executive Committee consisting, among others, of A. I. Zhelyabov, A. D. Mikhailov, M. F. Frolenko, N. A. Morozov, V. N. Figner, S. L. Perovskaya and A. A. Kvyatkovsky. The Narodovoltsi, remaining utopian socialists, took the path of political struggle, and regarded as their main task the overthrow of the autocracy and the gaining of political freedom. Their programme provided for the organisation of a “permanent people’s representation” elected on the basis of universal suffrage, proclamation of democratic freedoms, transfer of the land to the people and the working out of measures for the transfer of factories and plants to the workers. Lenin wrote: “The Narodnaya Volya members made a step forward when they took up the political struggle, but they failed to connect it with socialism” (present edition, Vol. 8, p. 72). The Narodovoltsi waged a heroic struggle against the tsarist autocracy. But proceeding from their erroneous theory of active “heroes” and the passive “crowd”, they expected to achieve the reconstruction of society without the people’s participation, through their own efforts, and by individual acts of terrorism to intimidate and disorganise the government. Following the assassination of Tsar Alexander II on March 1, 1881, the government crushed the NOTES 457

Narodnaya Volya by provocations, fierce reprisals and executions. Lenin, while criticising the erroneous and utopian programme of the Narodovoltsi, spoke with great respect about their selfless struggle against tsarism and put a high value on their conspiratorial techniques and strictly centralised organisation. p. 34 5 The draft agreement with P. B. Struve was worked out as a result of the talks held by V. I. Lenin, V. I. Zasulich and A. N. Potresov with Struve, which had been started on Potresov’s initiative on December 29, 1900 (see present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 380-82). The “legal Marxists” (mentioned in the document as the Svoboda [Freedom] democratic opposition group) Struve and M. I. Tugan- Baranovsky wanted the establishment of an illegal organ abroad (suggesting the name of Sovremennoye Obozreniye [Contemporary Review]) to be published parallel with Iskra and Zarya, but not openly connected with the Social-Democrats. The Editorial Board of Iskra and Zarya agreed to participate in the publication, hoping to obtain political material and reports for Iskra through Struve, but stipulated that the new organ should appear not more often than Zarya and as a supplement to it. The Editorial Board was to consist, on an equal footing, of the Iskra Editorial Board, and Struve and Tugan-Baranovsky. The talks revealed that Struve intended to use the Editorial Board of Iskra and Zarya to cater for Sovremennoye Obozreniye and was trying to turn it into an organ competing with Iskra in volume, content and frequency of publication. When the draft agreement was being worked out, Struve rejected Clause 7, which had been proposed by the Iskra and Zarya group and which gave the Iskra Editorial Board a completely free hand in making use of all the political material received by Sovremennoye Obozre- niye. Lenin set out the content of the talks with Struve in a letter to G. V. Plekhanov on January 30, 1901, and came out strongly for breaking off the talks (see present edition, Vol. 34, pp. 55-57). The subsequent talks ended in a complete break. p. 34 6 Zarya (Dawn)—a Marxist scientific and political journal published in Stuttgart in 1901 and 1902 by the Iskra Editorial Board. Altogether four issues (three books) of Zarya made their appearance: No. 1 in April 1901 (actually March 23, new style), No. 2-3 in December 1901, and No. 4 in August 1902. Zarya’s tasks were defined in a draft declaration by the Iskra and Zarya Editorial Board, written by Lenin in Russia (see present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 320-30). In view of the fact that during the discussion of the publication of these organs abroad, jointly with the Emancipation of Labour group, it had been decided to publish Zarya legally and Iskra illegally, the declaration of the Iskra Editorial Board in October 1900 no longer made mention of Zarya. The journal Zarya criticised international and Russian revisionism and came out in defence of the theoretical principles of Marxism. Some of Lenin’s works, including “The Persecutors of the Zemstvo and the Hannibals of Liberalism” and “The 458 NOTES

Agrarian Programme of Russian Social-Democracy”, were published in Zarya. p. 35 7 A reference to Minister of Finance S. Y. Witte’s confidential minute, “The Autocracy and the Zemstvo” (1899), with an introduction and notes by R. N. S. (P. B. Struve), published by the Zarya Publishers in 1901. p. 35 8 The Zemstvos were introduced in the central gubernias of Russia in 1864 and were local organs of self-government led by the gentry. Their writ was confined to local economic matters (hospi- tals, highways, statistics, insurance, etc.). Their activity was entirely under the control of the governors and the tsarist Ministry of the Interior, who could suspend any decisions the government did not like. p. 36 9 A reference to the newspaper Iskra, the first all-Russia illegal Marxist newspaper, founded by Lenin in 1900, which played a decisive part in organising the revolutionary Marxist party of the working class. The first issue of Lenin’s Iskra dated December 1900 appeared in Leipzig; subsequent issues appeared in Munich; from July 1902, in London; and from the spring of 1903, in Geneva. German Social-Democrats, Clara Zetkin, Adolf Braun and others, the Polish revolutionary Julian Marchlewski who was living in Munich at the time, and Harry Quelch, a leader of the British Social- Democratic Federation, rendered great assistance in starting the newspaper (organising a secret printing-press, buying Russian type, etc.). On Iskra’s Editorial Board were V. I. Lenin, G. V. Plekhanov, L. Martov, P. B. Axelrod, A. N. Potresov and V. I. Zasulich. Its secretary was I. G. Smidovich-Lehmann, and from the spring of 1901, N. K. Krupskaya, who was also in charge of Iskra’s correspondence with Social-Democratic organisations in Russia. Lenin was the virtual editor-in-chief and head of Iskra; he wrote articles on all the cardinal aspects of Party organisation and the class struggle of the proletariat in Russia Iskra became the centre round which the Party forces rallied and which gathered and trained the Party cadres. R.S.D.L.P. groups and committees, supporting the views put forward by Lenin’s Iskra, were set up in a number of cities in Russia (St. Peters- burg, Moscow, Samara, etc.) and the Iskra organisation in Russia was set up at a congress of Iskra followers in Samara in January 1902. On Lenin’s initiative and with his direct participation, the Iskra Editorial Board worked out a draft Party programme (published in Iskra No. 21) and prepared the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. In a special resolution, the Congress noted the exceptional role played by Iskra in the struggle for the Party and proclaimed it the Central Organ of the R.S.D.L.P. Soon after the Second Congress of the Party, the Mensheviks, with Plekhanov’s support, took over control of Iskra. From its No. 52 Iskra ceased to be an organ of revolutionary Marxism. p. 36 NOTES 459

10 Lenin’s remarks on the article by D. B. Ryazanov “Two Truths”, written in the summer of 1901 for the magazine Zarya. The article was rejected by the editors and was not published in the magazine. The pages indicated by Lenin are those of Ryazanov’s MS., which he submitted to the Zarya Editorial Board. p. 36 11 See Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, “Letter to the Editorial Board of Otechestvenniye Zapiski, November 1877”, Moscow, 1965, pp. 311-13. p. 36 12 Noumena and phenomena—opposite concepts in Kant’s idealistic philosophy. Kant held a noumenon to be an incognisable thing in itself, which existed independently of man’s consciousness and was beyond his grasp. A phenomenon exited only in the mind and was an object of cognition. This antithesis between noumena and phenomena, which is one of the main propositions of Kant’s subjective idealist epistemology, is used by the ideologists of imperialism and revisionists in their fight against materialism. Dialectical materialism rejected this antithesis and proved that Kant’s theory is wrong. p. 38 13 The Party Programme adopted by the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. in 1903 was worked out by the Editorial Board of Lenin’s Iskra at the end of 1901 and the first half of 1902. Lenin played an outstanding part in working out the draft. The preparatory material dates from January-February 1902; it is a reflection of key moments in the working out of the draft programme by the Iskra Editorial Board: Lenin’s study of the first draft of Plekha- nov’s programme; his work on his own draft of the theoretical section of the programme and his participation in writing the collective draft of the practical section of the programme. All materials are printed from the originals, with variants of paragraphs or parts of paragraphs printed side by side to facilitate comparison. For the preparatory material for the R.S.D.L.P. Programme see present edition, Vol. 6, pp. 15-76. p. 38 14 Cut-off lands—lands cut off from peasants’ allotments in favour of landowners during the Peasant Reform in Russia in 1861. As a rule, the peasants were deprived of their best lands, which is why the cut-off lands were a means used by landowners to enslave the peasants, and slowed down the elimination of feudal relations in land tenure. p. 39 15 Royal demesnes are lands which belonged to the royal family. p. 48 16 G. V. Plekhanov’s and P. B. Axelrod’s remarks on Lenin’s article “The Agrarian Programme of Russian Social-Democracy” were written on the back of the original between April 20 and May 1 (May 3 and 14), 1902. Lenin’s replies were also written on the back of the original on May 1 (14), 1902, at the same time as his letter to Plekhanov (see present edition, Vol. 34, p. 103); the concluding part of Lenin’s replies (pp. 68-69) was written on 460 NOTES

separate sheets appended to the original of the article. Each of the replies was preceded by an extract from the article to which the remarks referred. Lenin used thin lines to underscore Plekhanov’s text. p. 53 17 A reference to Karl Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme (see Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. II, Moscow, 1962, pp. 13-48) and Engels’s “Zur Kritik des sozialdemokratischen Programmentwurfes 1891” (Criticism of the Draft Social-Democrat- ic Programme of 1891) (Marx/Engels, Werke, Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1962, Bd. 22, S. 272-91). p. 56 18 The Valuyev Commission—a commission set up to inquire into the state of agriculture in Russia and headed by tsarist Minister P. A. Valuyev. In 1872 and 1873, it collected extensive material on the state of agriculture in Russia following the 1861 Reform, and this was published in a book entitled Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Present State of Agriculture and Agricultural Productivity in Russia, St. Petersburg, 1873. p. 57 19 A general strike in support of the demand for universal suffrage put forward in Parliament by representatives of the Labour, Liberal and Democratic parties. The strike involved over 300,000 workers, who staged demonstrations throughout the country. However, when Parliament rejected the Bill and troops fired on the demonstrators, the opportunist leadership of the Labour Party (Vandervelde and others) capitulated and, under the pressure of their “allies” from the camp of the liberal bourgeoisie, called off the general strike. The defeat of the working class in Belgium in April 1902 was a lesson for the working- class movement of the world. p. 61 20 Vestnik Russkoi Revolutsii. Sotsialno-politicheskoye obozreniye (Herald of the Russian Revolution. Socio-Political Review)— an illegal magazine published in Paris and Geneva from 1901 to 1905. Four issues appeared. From No. 2 on it was a theoretical organ of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party. p. 62 21 A reference to the following remark by L. Martov at the Zurich conference of the Iskra Editorial Board on April 2 (15), 1902: “We should emphasise and bring out the reactionary character of the demand for the nationalisation of the land in Russia at the present moment.” After the Zurich conference, Lenin made several changes in Chapter VII, which deals with the demand for the nationalisation of the land (see present edition, Vol. 6, pp. 137-40). p. 63 22 A reference to the following remark by L. Martov: “It must be said instead that we accept the nationalisation of the land only as an immediate prelude to the socialisation of all the means of production.” p. 64 23 A reference to rewards given by the government of Charles X to former émigrés whose lands were confiscated and sold as national property during the French bourgeois revolution at the end of the NOTES 461

eighteenth century. The law on compensation adopted on March 27, 1825, provided for pecuniary rewards totalling 1,091,360,000 francs (the “émigré billion”). Members of the royal retinue got the biggest rewards. To obtain this vast sum of money, the government increased taxes and converted the 5 per cent state rent to 3 per cent. p. 66 24 A reference to Plekhanov’s remark on the following part of the article: “But why confine oneself to this source? Why not try, in addition, to return to the people at least part of the tribute which yesterday’s slave-owners extracted, and are still extracting, from the peasants with the assistance of the police state?” (See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 142.) Plekhanov wrote: “That is the only thing that should be proposed, and not charity. Only those who received the amounts can be expected to return them: the gentry.”p. 66 25 A reference to the following remark by L. Martov: “This proposition is wrong. Freedom to demand a separate plot flows precisely from the freedom to dispose of the land. It is enough to point out instead that the transformation of the power of the commune over the individual into the power of an association over the member who joins on his own accord is not ruled out by our demands.” After the Zurich conference, Lenin crossed out both sentences in the original and wrote instead: “This objection would be groundless” ending with “put up for sale by a fellow member” (p. 67). p. 67 26 The leaflet of the Don Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. “To the Citizens of Russia”, issued on May 9 (22), 1902, was circulated among workers in a total of 2,000 copies. It said that the blood of Balmashev, who had been sentenced to death by a military tribunal for the assassination of Minister Sipyagin, “will wash the eyes of the blinded philistines and make them see the indescrib- able horror of the autocracy in Russia. Let them see that our struggle against it is growing and spreading. Masses of peasants are already coming to the assistance of the workers and a handful of unhypocritical intellectuals. The first signs are already in evidence: in Tula the soldiers have refused to shoot at the strikers; a peasant uprising has broken out in Poltava and Kharkov gubernias. For centuries the muzhik there had been working for the benefit of his lord, for centuries he had suffered oppression and privation, and his patience has finally come to an end.” The tsarist government hastened to the rescue of the landowners and started fierce reprisals. The leaflet went on: “We have had enough of this slavish and ignominious forbearance, we have had enough of sacrifice.... Citizens! Stem the endless tide of this horrible blood- letting! Overthrow the autocracy!” p. 69 27 Socialist-Revolutionaries (S.R.s)—a petty-bourgeois party in Russia which originated at the end of 1901 and the beginning of 1902 from the merger of various Narodnik groups and circles (the Union of Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Party of Socialist- Revolutionaries, etc.). The views of the S.R.s were a jumble of Narodnik and revisionist ideas; they tried, as Lenin put it, 462 NOTES

to “patch up the rents in the Narodnik ideas with bits of fashionable opportunist ‘criticism’ of Marxism” (see present edition, Vol. 9, p. 310). During the First World War, most of the S.R.s took a social-chauvinist stand. After the bourgeois-democratic revolution in February 1917, the S.R.s and the Mensheviks were the mainstay of the counter- revolutionary bourgeois and landowner Provisional Government, while the party’s leaders (Avksentyev, Kerensky and Chernov) were in the government. At the end of November 1917, the Left wing of the S.R.s formed an independent party of Left S.R.s. In an effort to retain their influence among the peasants, the Left S.R.s gave nominal recognition to the Soviet power and entered into an agreement with the Bolsheviks, but soon began to fight against the Soviets. During the foreign armed intervention and the Civil War, the S.R.s were engaged in counter-revolutionary subversive activity, giving active support to the interventionists and whiteguards, taking part in counter-revolutionary plots and organising terroristic acts against the leaders of the Soviet state and the Communist Party. After the Civil War, the S.R.s continued their hostile activity inside the country and among the whiteguard émigrés. p. 69

28 The leaflet “To the Citizens of All Russia” was issued by the Don Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. in November 1902 in connection with the strike in Rostov from November 2 to 25 (Novem- ber 15-December 8). It refuted the official report in Pravitelstvenny Vestnik (Govern- ment Herald) about the Rostov events, which described the workers as an “unruly crowd” with crude demands allegedly of an exclusively economic character. The leaflet gave a true picture of the strike, which was expressly political, and described the fierce reprisals of the tsarist troops against the workers and their families. It called on the workers to respond with revolutionary action to the violence of the tsarist government. The leaflet ended with these words: “Let the fire that has flared up on the Don spread in a terrible conflagration, let the rifle salvoes be echoed by mighty demonstrations, let the groans of the victims be amplified by thunderous protest, let citizens everywhere, as unanimously as in Rostov, pass the death sentence on the autocracy, which is oppressing the country! “Down with the autocracy! “Long live the coming revolution!” The leaflet was published in Iskra No. 31 on January 1, 1903, with an editorial introduction by Lenin, and was also issued in a special reprint. On the copy of the leaflet received by the Iskra Editorial Board, there is also the following in Lenin’s hand: “Set up in brevier right away and issue in a special reprint: Special impression from No. 31 of ‘Iskra’”, together with a calculation of the number of letters and instructions to the type-setters. p. 70 NOTES 463

29 The pamphlet was never written. p. 70 30 Sozialistische Monatshefte (Socialist Monthly)—a magazine, the chief organ of the German opportunists and one of the organs of international opportunism. It was published in Berlin from 1897 to 1933. During the First World War (1914-18) it took a social- chauvinist stand. p. 71 31 Revolutsionnaya Rossiya (Revolutionary Russia)—an illegal S.R. newspaper published in Russia from the end of 1900 by the Union of Socialist-Revolutionaries (No. 1, dated 1900, actually came out in January 1901). From January 1902 to December 1905 it was published in Geneva as the official organ of the S.R. Party. p. 72 32 A reference to the programme appeal, “From the Peasant Union of the Party of Socialist-Revolutionaries to All the Workers of Revolutionary Socialism in Russia”, published in the newspaper Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 8 on June 25, 1902. There is another reference to the appeal in point 3 of section C. p. 72 33 Economism—an opportunist trend within Russian Social- Democracy at the turn of the century, a Russian variety of international opportunism. The Economists’ organs were the newspaper Rabochaya Mysl (Workers’ Thought) (1897-1902) and the magazine Rabocheye Dyelo (Workers’ Cause) (1899-1902). The so-called Credo, written by Y. D. Kuskova in 1899, was the programme document of the Economists whom Lenin called Russian Bernsteinians. The views of the Economists were subjected to comprehensive criticism in Lenin’s works: “A Protest by Russian Social-Demo- crats” (aimed against their Credo and written in 1899 when Lenin was exiled in Siberia; it was signed by seventeen exiled Marxists), “A Retrograde Trend in Russian Social-Democracy”, “Apropos of the Profession de foi” (see present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 167-82, 255-85, 286-96) and “A Talk with Defenders of Economism” (see present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 313-20). Lenin completed the ideological defeat of Economism in his book What Is To Be Done< (see present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 347-529). Lenin’s Iskra played a great part in the struggle against Economism. p. 73 34 A reference to A. N. Potresov’s article “Modern Vestal Virgin (From Sketches of Modern Journalism)”, signed “St.” and published in the magazine Zarya No. 2-3, December 1901. p. 73 35 Narodnoye Dyelo (People’s Cause)—a popular organ of the Social- ist-Revolutionary Party published in the form of collections (No. 1 was issued as a newspaper) in Geneva from 1902 to 1904; a total of five issues appeared. p. 75 36 A reference to the article “Concerning Iskra’s Polemics”; which appeared in No. 11 of Revolutsionnaya Rossiya in September 1902. p. 76 37 A reference to an article which had no title and was signed “S.R.” It appeared in a hectographed periodical Vperyod No. 5 464 NOTES

on September 15, 1902, which was issued in St. Petersburg by Vperyod, a circle of Narodnik orientation. p. 76 38 A quotation from “The Element of Terrorism in Our Programme”, an article carried by Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 7 in June 1902. p. 76 39 A reference to the article “How Are We To Respond to the Govern- ment’s Brutalities?”, which appeared in Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 12 in October 1902. p. 76 40 The Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. was held from July 17 (30) to August 10 (23), 1903. The first 13 sittings were held in Brussels, after which, because of police persecution, the Congress moved to London. It was prepared by Iskra, which under Lenin’s guidance put in a tremendous effort to unite Social-Democrats in Russia round the principles of revolutionary Marxism. Iskra’s Editorial Board worked out and proposed for discussion at the Congress a draft Party programme (published in Iskra No. 21 on June 1, 1902). Several documents for the Congress were written by Lenin: draft Rules of the R.S.D.L.P., several draft resolutions and a plan for the report on Iskra’s activity. Lenin also worked out in detail the agenda and the standing orders of the Congress. The draft Rules and the draft agenda of the Congress were communicated beforehand to the members of Iskra’s Editorial Board and then to the delegates. The Congress was attended by 43 delegates with vote, representing 26 organisations. Some delegates had two votes each so that the total of votes at the Congress came to 51. The composition of the Congress was not homogeneous. It was attended not only by supporters of Iskra, but also by its opponents, and by unstable and wavering elements. There were 20 items on the agenda of the Congress. Lenin delivered the report on the Party Rules and spoke in the debate on most of the items of the agenda. Approval of the Programme and the Rules of the Party and the election of the Party governing centres were the most important questions before the Congress. Lenin and his supporters launched a resolute struggle against the opportunists. The Congress gave a rebuff to the opportunists and approved the Party Programme almost unanimously (with one abstention). It contained a formulation of the immediate tasks of the proletariat in the coming bourgeois-democratic revolution (minimum programme) and the tasks designed for the victory of the socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat (maximum programme). For the first time in the international labour movement since the death of Marx and Engels, a revolutionary programme was adopted, which stated, on Lenin’s insistence, that the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat was the principal task of the working-class party. In the debate on the Party Rules there was an acute struggle over the Party’s organisational principles. Lenin and his support- NOTES 465

ers wanted to set up a militant revolutionary party of the working class, which is why the wording of the first paragraph of the Rules proposed by Lenin stated that a member must not only accept the Party’s Programme and give it financial support, but personally participate in the work of one of its organisations. Martov motioned his own wording of the first paragraph, which stated that a member need only accept the Programme and give the Party financial support, and also give regular personal assistance to the Party under the guidance of one of its organisations. Mar- tov’s wording, which facilitated access to the Party for unstable elements, was adopted by a small majority. Otherwise the Con- gress approved the Rules as worked out by Lenin. The Congress also adopted a number of resolutions on tactical questions. At the Congress, a split developed between those who consistently supported Lenin’s Iskra and the “soft” Iskrists, the supporters of Martov. The former received a majority in the election to the Party’s central bodies and accordingly took the name of Bolsheviks, while the latter, the opportunists, received a minority and were called Mensheviks. The Congress was of tremendous importance for the development of the working-class movement in Russia Lenin wrote: “As a current of political thought and as a political party, Bolshe- vism has existed since 1903” (see present edition, Vol. 31, p. 24). The Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. was a turning-point in the international working-class movement, because it set up a new type of proletarian party, which became a model for revolutionary Marxists throughout the world. For more information about the Second Congress see present edition, Vol. 6, pp. 465-507. p. 78

41 This is a detailed elaboration of the standing orders and agenda for the Congress. Section A was taken as a basis for the standing orders adopted by the Congress. Section B was the draft agenda (Tagesordnung) supplied with the commentaries, which, Lenin said, “was known to a l l the “Iskra”-ists long before the Congress and to all the delegates at the Congress” (see present edition, Vol. 7, p. 31). The initial text of the document was supplemented by Lenin on the strength of remarks received from Martov and possibly other Iskra supporters as well who had studied it. The text is here given in full with subsequent addenda and amendments. p. 78

42 The Organising Committee (O.C.) for the Convocation of the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. was set up at a conference in Pskov on November 2-3 (15-16), 1902. The first attempt to set up an Organising Committee was made at the Belostok conference of the R.S.D.L.P. committees and organisations (March 23-28 [April 5-10], 1902), which was called on the initiative of the Economists and Bundists. The Organising Committee elected at the conference consisted of representatives of Iskra, the Union of Southern Committees and Organisa- tions of the R.S.D.L.P. and the Bund Central Committee; it was 466 NOTES

unable to start work because two of its members were arrested soon after the conference. A conference of Iskra supporters, led by Lenin, met in London on August 2 (15), 1902, to set up the nucleus of the Russian O.C. It was decided to invite representatives from the Bund and the Yuzhny Rabochy group which at the time showed signs of moving closer to Iskra, and also to give the O.C. the right to co-opt members. A conference of Social-Democratic organisations at which the O.C. was constituted was held in Pskov on November 2-3 (15-16). The conference adopted the text of an “Announcement of the For- mation of an Organising Committee”, which was published as a leaflet in Russia in December 1902. In early February 1903, the second O.C. conference was held in Orel. It workedFROM out and adoptedMARX draft regulations of the Congress and the list of organisations entitled to attend it. The regulations were circulated among the local committees which were then toured by TO the members MAO of the O.C. They were adopted and approved by the local organisations, and served as the basis for the Organising Committee’s further work in preparing for the Party’s Second Congress. The O.C.’s successful activity, which culminated in the convocation of the Congress, was made possible only by the tremendous work in uniting Russian revolutionary Social-Democrats carried out by ’s Editorial Board and the organisation Iskra Iskra under Lenin’s direction. In his book, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, Lenin wrote: “The Organising Committee was mainly a commission set up to convene the Congress, a commission deliberately composed ofNOT representatives FOR of different shades, including even the Bundists; while the real work of creating the organised unity of the Party was done entirely by the Iskra organisation” (see present edition,COMMERCIAL Vol. 7, p. 277). p. 78 43 Polish Social-Democrats—members of the revolutionary party of the Polish working class, which emerged in 1893, first as the Social-DemocracyDISTRIBUTION of the Kingdom of Poland, and from August 1900, following the congress of Social-Democratic organisations of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania, where the Polish and a section of the Lithuanian Social-Democrats were merged, it was known as the Social-Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania (S.D.K.P. and L.). The fact that the party directed the Polish working-class movement towards alliance with the Russian working-class movement and fought against nationalism was to its credit. At the same time, it made a number of mistakes; it failed to understand Lenin’s theory of socialist revolution, or the leading role of the party in the democratic revolution; it underestimated the role of the peasantry as an ally of the working class and the importance of the national liberation movement. While criticising the party’s erroneous views, Lenin emphasised its services to the Polish revolutionary movement. He noted that Polish Social-Democrats had created “for the first time a purely proletarian party in Poland and proclaimed the extremely impor- NOTES 467

tant principle that the Polish and the Russian workers must maintain the closest alliance in their class struggle” (see present edition, Vol. 20, p. 434). The Fourth (Unity) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. admitted the S.D.K.P. and L. into the R.S.D.L.P. as a territorial organisation. The S.D.K.P. and L. welcomed the Great October Socialist Revolution and launched a struggle for the victory of the proletarian revolution in Poland. At the Unity Congress of the S.D.K.P. and L. and the P.P.S.-Lewica in December 1918, the two parties merged to form the Communist Workers’ Party of Poland. p. 78 44 The Bund (General Jewish Workers’ Union of Lithuania, Poland and Russia) consisted mainly of semi-proletarian elements among Jewish artisans in Russia’s western areas. Within the R.S.D.L.P., the Bundists constantly supported its opportunist wing (Economists, Mensheviks and liquidators) and waged a struggle against the Bolsheviks and Bolshevism. p. 80 45 The First Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. was held at Minsk from March 1 to 3 (13-15), 1898. It was attended by nine delegates from six organisations: the St. Petersburg, Moscow, Yekateri- noslav and Kiev organisations of the League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class, from the group of the Kiev Rabochaya Gazeta and from the Bund. The Congress elected the Party’s Central Committee, confirmed Rabochaya Gazeta as the Party’s official organ, issued a Manifesto and designated the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad as the Party’s representative abroad (see K.P.S.S. v rezolutsiyakh i resheniyakh syezdov, konferentsii i plenumov TsK (C.P.S.U. in Resolutions and Decisions of Congresses, Conferences and Plenary Meetings of the Central Committee), Part I, 1954, pp. 11-15). The importance of the First Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. lay in the fact that its decisions and Manifesto proclaimed the establishment of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, thereby playing a great revolutionary and propagandist part. But the Congress did not adopt a Programme or work out any Party Rules; the Central Committee elected at the Congress was arrested and the Rabochaya Gazeta printing-press was seized, which is why the Congress failed to unite and merge together separate Marxist circles and organisations. The local organisations were not guided from a single centre and there was no single line in their work. p. 80 46 Borba (Struggle)—a Social-Democratic group abroad which included D. B. Ryazanov, Y. M. Steklov (Nevzorov) and E. L. Gure- vich (V. Danevich). It was formed in Paris in the summer of 1900 and in May the following year took the name of Borba. Its publications (“Materials for the Working out of a Party Pro- gramme”, parts I-III, “Leaflet of the Borba Group”, etc.) distorted revolutionary Marxist theory, giving it a doctrinaire and scho- lastic interpretation and taking a hostile attitude to Lenin’s principles of Party organisation. In view of its departures from Social-Democratic ideas and tactics, its disorganising activity and lack of connection with Social-Democratic organisations 468 NOTES

in Russia, it was not allowed to attend the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., which adopted a decision to dissolve it (see Vtoroi syezd R.S.D.R.P. [The Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.], 1959, p. 438). p. 81 47 Zhizn (Life)—a literary, scientific and political magazine published in St. Petersburg from 1897 to 1901. Among its contributors were “legal Marxists’ (M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky, P. B. Struve and others) and leading writers and critics (A. M. Gorky, A. P. Chekhov, V. V. Veresayev, S. G. Skitalets, I. A. Bunin and Y. A. Solovyov [Andreyevich]). The magazine published Marx’s Wages, Price and Profit and Lenin’s articles “Capitalism in Agriculture (Kautsky’s Book and Mr. Bulgakov’s Article)” and “Reply to Mr. P. Nezhdanov” (see present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 105-59, 160-65). Zhizni was closed down by the government in June 1901 and was resumed abroad in April 1902 by the Zhizn Social-Democratic group. There were six issues of the magazine, twelve issues of the Listok Zhizni (Zhizni Handbill) and several publications in the Biblioteka Zhizni (Zhizni Library) series. The Zhizn group had some deviations from Social-Democratic views and tactics, inclining towards Christian socialism and anarchism. It ceased to exist in December 1902 and the publishing business was wound up. p. 81 48 Volya (Will)—a group abroad which called itself a “revolutionary Social-Democratic organisation”. In February 1903, it issued a leaflet, “To Revolutionaries from the Revolutionary Social- Democratic Organisation Volya”, which put forward the task of conducting political agitation among all strata of the population and of uniting Social-Democrats with Socialist-Revolution- aries. The Volya group was not a part of the R.S.D.L.P. The Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. adopted a resolution “On the Kuklin Publishers Group and the Volya Group”, which said: “The Congress states that neither of these organisations is within the Party, and that they have nothing in common with organised Social-Democracy in Russia. The question of future relations between these groups and the Party is for the Party’s Central Committee to decide in the event these groups apply to it” (Vtoroi syezd R.S.D.R.P., 1959, p. 439). Soon after the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., the group announced its dissolution and the entry of its members into the R.S.D.L.P.; an announcement to that effect was inserted in Iskra No. 52 on November 7, 1903. p. 82 49 The Emancipation of Labour group—the first Russian Marxist group formed by G. V. Plekhanov in Switzerland in 1883. Among its members were P. B. Axelrod, L. G. Deutsch, V. I. Zasulich and V. N. Ignatov. It did much to spread Marxism in Russia and dealt a serious blow at Narodism, which was the main ideological obstacle to the spread of Marxism and to the development of the Social-Democratic movement in Russia. Written by Plekhanov and published by the Emancipation of Labour group, the two draft programmes of the Russian Social-Democrats (1883 and NOTES 469

1885) were an important step in preparing and creating a Social- Democratic party in Russia. Lenin said that the group “only laid the theoretical foundations for the Social-Democratic movement and took the first step towards the working-class movement” (see present edition, Vol. 20, p. 278). Members of the group also made serious mistakes: they overestimated the role of the liberal bourgeoisie and underestimated the revolutionary role of the peasantry as a reserve of the proletarian revolution. These mistakes were the germ of the subsequent Menshevik views held by Plekhanov and other members of the group. In 1894, the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad was formed on the initiative of the Emancipation of Labour group. Members of the group and their followers left the Union in 1900 and set up a revolutionary organisation, Sotsial-Demokrat. G. V. Plekhanov, P. B. Axelrod and V. I. Zasulich were on the Editorial Board of Iskra and Zarya. At the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., in August 1903, the Emancipation of Labour group announced its dissolution. p. 82

50 Iskra’s organisation in Russia united Iskra supporters operating inside Russia. During the preparation for publishing Iskra and in the first year of its publication (December 1900-December 1901) a network of Iskra agents was set up in various towns of Russia. Among them were P. N. Lepeshinsky and O. B. Lepeshinskaya, P. A. Krasikov, A. M. Stopani, G. M. Krzhizhanovsky and Z. P. Krzhizhanovskaya, S. I. Radchenko and L. N. Radchenko, A. D. Tsyurupa, N. E. Bauman and I. V. Babushkin. Iskra promotion groups were set up in a number of cities, including St. Pe- tersburg, Pskov, Samara and Poltava. The growth of the revolutionary movement and the increasing volume of practical work insistently urged the need to unite the Iskra forces and place their work on a planned and organised basis, which would help to solve the main task, that of overcoming the amateurish methods introduced by the Economists and winning over the Social-Democratic committees. In this connection, Lenin put forward a plan for an all-Russia Iskra organisation, which was to prepare the unification of Social-Democratic organisations in the country into an integrated, centralised Marxist party. This plan was initially set out by Lenin in his article “Where To Begin?” (May 1901) and then elaborated in the pamphlet What Is To Be Done> (autumn of 1901-February 1902) (see present edition Vol. 5, pp. 13-24, 347-529). In implementing the plan for the establishment of an integrated Iskra organisation in Russia, Lenin and his supporters had to overcome narrow local (regional) tendencies among some Iskra practitioners. A congress of Iskra workers was held in Samara in January 1902 and was attended by G. M. Krzhizhanovsky and Z. P. Krzhi- zhanovskaya, F. V. Lengnik, M. A. Silvin, V. P. Artsybushev, D. I. Ulyanov, M. I. Ulyanova and others. The congress set up a Bureau of the Iskra organisation in Russia. 470 NOTES

Armed with Lenin’s book What Is To Be Done>, Iskra workers vigorously set about spreading and realising Lenin’s plan for the establishment of the party. The Iskra organisation in Russia achieved a great deal in actually uniting party organisations on the principles of revolutionary Marxism. By the end of 1902, almost all the major Social-Democratic committees had announced their solidarity with Iskra. The Organising Committee for Convening the Party’s Second Congress, to which the Iskra organisations handed over all their connections, was set up at a conference in Pskov on November 2-3 (15-16), 1902, with the most active participation of Iskra workers. The Iskra organisation in Russia operated until the Second Congress and played an important part in preparing and convoking the Congress, which set up the revolutionary Marxist party in Russia. p. 82 51 The “Yuzhny Rabochy” group—a Social-Democratic group formed in the south of Russia by the autumn of 1900 round a newspaper of the same name. The newspaper Yuzhny Rabochy (Southern Worker) was published illegally from 1900 to 1903. Twelve numbers were issued, the first in January 1900 by the Yekaterinoslav Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. At various times, I. Kh. Lalayants, A. Vilensky, O. A. Kogan (Yermansky), B. S. Tseitlin, Y. Y. Levin and Y. S. Levina, V. N. Rozanov and others were members of the group and the Editorial Board. In contrast to the Economists, the Yuzhny Rabochy group believed that the main task of the proletariat was to carry on political struggle for the overthrow of the autocracy. It opposed terrorism, upheld the idea of launching a mass revolutionary movement and carried out considerable revolutionary work in the south of Russia. But the group tended to overrate the role of the liberal bourgeoisie and attached no importance to the peasant movement. In opposition to the Iskra plan for creating a centralised Marxist party through the unification of the revolutionary Social-Democrats round Iskra, the Yuzhny Rabochy group put forward a plan for restoring the R.S.D.L.P. by setting up regional Social-Democratic associatlons. In his One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, Lenin said the Yuzhny Rabochy group was one of those organisations “which, while verbally recognising Iskra as the leading organ, actually pursued plans of their own and were unstable in matters of principle” (present edition, Vol. 7, p. 209). At the Second Congress of the Party, the Yuzhny Rabochy delegates took a Centrist position (Lenin called them “middling opportunists”). The Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. decided to dissolve the Yuzhny Rabochy group, like all other separate Social-Democratic groups and organisations (see Vtoroi syezd R.S.D.R.P., 1959, p. 439). p. 82 52 P.P.S. (Polska Partia Socjalistyczna—Polish Socialist Party)— a reformist nationalist Party set up in 1892. It had a programme based on the struggle for an independent Poland, and under the leadership of Pilsudski and his followers it carried on separatist NOTES 471 nationalistic propaganda among the Polish workers in an effort to draw them away from joint struggle with the Russian workers against the autocracy and capitalism In 1906 it split up into the P.P.S.-Lewica (Left-wing) and the Right-wing, chauvinist P.P.S., known as the “revolutionary faction”. Under the influence of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.) and of the S.D.K.P and L. (the Social-Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania), the P.P.S. Lewica gradually went over to consistent revolutionary positions. During the First World War, most of its members took an internationalist stand and in December 1918 merged with the S.D.K.P. and L. These two parties constituted the Communist Workers’ Party of Poland (as the Communist Party of Poland was called until 1925). During the First World War, the Right-wing P.P.S. continued to conduct its national-chauvinist policy. When the bourgeois Polish state was formed, the Right-wing P.P.S. in 1919 united with sections of the P.P.S. on the territory of Poland earlier occupied by Germany and Austria and once again took the name of P.P.S. With the government in its hands, it helped the Polish bourgeoisie to take over power and then launched a systematic anti-communist campaign, supporting the policy of aggression against the Soviet state, and the policy of occupying and oppressing Western Ukraine and Western Byelorussia. Some groups in the P.P.S. which disagreed with this policy went over to the Communist Party of Poland. Following the fascist coup staged by Pilsudski in May 1926, the P.P.S. was nominally in opposition in Parliament, but actually conducted no active struggle against the fascist regime and continued its anti-communist and anti-Soviet propaganda. In this period, Left-wing elements in the P.P.S. co-operated with the Polish Communists and supported the united-front tactics in a number of campaigns During the Second World War, the P.P.S. split up once again. Its reactionary and chauvinist section, which called itself “Wol- noëF, RównoëF, NiepodlegloëF” (Freedom, Equality, Independ- ence), took part in the reactionary Polish government in exile (London). The Left-wing section of the P.P.S., which called itself the Workers’ Party of Polish Socialists (W.P.P.S.), under the influence of the Polish Workers’ Party (P.W.P.), set up in 1942, joined the popular front of struggle against the nazi invaders, fought for the liberation of Poland from the fascist enslavement and favoured friendship with the U.S.S.R. In 1944, following the liberation of the eastern part of Poland from the German occupation and the establishment of the Polish Committee of National Liberation, the W.P.P.S. once again took the name of P.P.S. and together with the P.W.P. set about building up a democratic people’s Poland. In December 1948, the P.W.P. and the P.P.S. merged into the Polish United Work- ers’ Party (P.U.W.P.). p. 83 472 NOTES

53 The Amsterdam International Socialist Congress of the Second International was held from August 14 to 20, 1904. It dealt with the following questions: 1) international rules of socialist tactics; 2) colonial policy; 3) general strike; 4) social policy and workers’ insurance; 5) trusts and unemployment, and other questions. The attitude to bourgeois parties was expressed in a resolution called “International Rules of Socialist Tactics”, which prohibited socialists from taking part in bourgeois governments and censured “any urge to gloss over existing class contradictions with a view to facilitating a rapprochement with bourgeois parties”. The Congress decisions, while being a step forward, went only a part of the way and were a further concession to opportunism. The Congress failed to raise the question of the mass strike developing into an armed uprising or to give a rebuff to Right-wing opportunists who were inclined to justify the colonial policy of the imperialist powers. While saying that it condemned revisionism, the Congress failed to declare a break with it, and said nothing about the proletarian revolution or the dictatorship of the proletariat. p. 83 54 The Party Council (1903-05) was set up under the Party Rules adopted by the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. as the highest Party institution designed to co-ordinate and unify the activity of the Central Committee and the Editorial Board of the Central Organ and to restore the C.C. and the Editorial Board of the C.O. in the event the entire membership of either of these bodies was gone, and also to represent the Party in relations with other parties. The Council had the task of convening Party congresses within the period laid down by the Rules or before the due date, upon the demand of Party organisations which together commanded one-half of the congress votes. The Party Council consisted of five members, one of whom was appointed by the Party congress and the others by the Central Committee and the C.O. Editorial Board, which had two members each on the Council. The Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. elected G. V. Ple- khanov as the fifth member of the Council. Lenin was elected a member of the Council from the C.O. Editorial Board, and from the C.C. when he left Iskra. Following Plekhanov’s orientation towards opportunism and the Mensheviks’ seizure of the Editorial Board, the Party Council became an instrument of the Menshe- viks’ struggle against the Bolsheviks. Lenin waged a consistent struggle in the Council to unite the Party, exposing the disorganising and splitting activity of the Mensheviks. Under the Rules adopted by the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., the Council was abolished. p. 84 55 The first speech is in reply to M. I. Lieber’s question: “How are we to understand the point about the national question? Why is it separated out from the point about the draft programme? What is the meaning of the national question being a question of tactics? Why is this question not regarded as a cardinal one?” The second speech is in reply to another of Lieber’s questions: NOTES 473

“How are we to understand the point about national organisations? This question appears to be raised independently of the question of the Bund’s status in the Party” (Vtoroi syezd R.S.D.R.P., 1959, pp. 17-18). The first point, mentioned by Lenin, in the list of questions subject to debate at the Congress (“On the Bund’s Status in the R.S.D.L.P.”) was second on the agenda adopted by the Congress, and point six (“Regional and National Organisations”) was seventh. p. 85 56 Lenin spoke twice on the question of the Organising Committee’s actions in calling the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. For his first speech see present edition, Vol. 6, p. 482 and Note 136. The Congress adopted the following resolution: “With the election of the committee, whose task is to determine the composition of the Congress, the Organising Committee has lost its right as a collegium to exert an influence on the composition of the Congress, and its activity, as a collegium, is deemed to have ceased on this point” (Vtoroi syezd R.S.D.R.P., 1959, pp. 37-38). p. 85 57 The question of the representatives of the S.D.K.P. and L. attending the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. was first raised on the initiative of the Iskra Editorial Board in a letter sent by the Organising Committee for the Convocation of the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. to the S.D.K.P. and L. Committee Abroad on February 7, 1903. The terms on which the Polish Social-Democrats could be united with the R.S.D.L.P. were discussed at the Fourth Congress of the S.D.K.P. and L. which was held from July 11 to 16 (24-29), 1903. The Congress formulated a number of terms for a possible merger, one of them being the demand for a change in the formulation of the R.S.D.L.P.’s Programme clause on the right of nations to self-determination. When the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. opened, its delegates had no knowledge of this decision. The committee to determine the composition of the Congress and verify mandates, in its report to the Congress on July 18 (31), read out a letter from the Polish Social-Democrat A. Warski (A. S. Warszawski), which it had at its disposal. But the letter did not clarify the relations the Polish Social-Democrats wanted to establish with the R.S.D.L.P. The committee decided to invite the Polish Social-Democrats to attend the Congress with voice only. A. Warski and J. Hanecki arrived at the Congress on July 22 (August 4) and Warski announced the decision of the Fourth Congress of the S.D.K.P. and L. concerning the terms for unification with the R.S.D.L.P. A special committee was elected to examine these terms. The point on the right of nations to self-determination, raised by the Polish Social-Democrats, was discussed in the Programme Committee. No minutes were taken, but the notes made at the third sitting of the committee by Lenin (see Fifth Russian edition of the Collected Works, Vol. 7, pp. 423-24) show that the 474 NOTES

Polish Social-Democrats objected to the point on the right of nations to self-determination and proposed that the programme should contain a demand for the establishment of institutions guaranteeing complete freedom of cultural development for all nations within a state. As Lenin later pointed out: “instead of self-determination they practically proposed the notorious ‘cultural-national autonomy’, only under another name” (see present edition, Vol. 20, p. 444). The committee rejected the proposals of the Polish Social-Democrats. Realising that they would be unable to maintain these proposals at the Congress, they left it after making a statement setting out their standpoint. Their statement was read out at the Congress on July 29 (August 11). On August 6 (19), in connection with the report by the committee, which had examined the terms for a merger of the S.D.K.P. and L. with the R.S.D.L.P. as proposed by the Polish Social-Democrats the Congress adopted a resolution expressing regret over the fact that the withdrawal of the Polish Social-Democrats from the Congress deprived it of the possibility of completing the discussion of the S.D.K.P. and L.’s joining the R.S.D.L.P., and instructed the Central Committee to continue the negotiations. The speech reported here is Lenin’s second. The first was given in Vol. 6 of the present edition, p. 483. p. 86

58 A reference to an amendment to the paragraph of the general section of the draft programme which said: “But as all these contradictions, which are inherent in bourgeois society, increase and develop, the discontent among the labouring and exploited masses with the existing state of things grows, the number and the solidarity of proletarians increase, and their struggle against their exploiters becomes sharper.” When this paragraph was discussed by the Programme Committee (a sitting Lenin did not attend) the word “consciousness” was inserted after the words “the number and the solidarity”. The amendment was rejected by the Congress, with a majority voting for the original wording. p. 86 59 The point at issue is §1 of the general political demands of the draft Party programme, which was given the following wording by the Programme Committee: “The sovereignty of the people, that is, concentration of all the supreme state power in the hands of a legislative assembly constituting a single chamber and made up of representatives of the people” (Vtoroi syezd R.S.D.R.P., 1959, p. 179). K. M. Takhtarev (Strakhov) proposed that the words “sovereignty of the people” should be substituted by the words “supremacy of the people”. His amendment was rejected by the Congress. p. 86 60 A reference to §3 of the general political demands of the draft Party programme tabled by the Programme Committee and containing a demand for broad local and regional self-government. p. 87 61 A reference to §9 of the general political demands of the draft NOTES 475

programme (§8 of the Iskra draft), which said: “The granting to every citizen of the right to institute judicial proceedings against any person in office without lodging a complaint with his superiors”. V. N. Krokhmal (Fomin) proposed that the word “citizen” should be followed by “and to every foreigner”. The Congress rejected the proposal. p. 87 62 In the discussion of §12 of the general political demands of the draft programme (§9 of the Iskra draft), which said that the standing army should be substituted by the “universal arming of the people”, Lieber proposed that the word “militia” should be used instead of the “universal arming of the people”. Lieber’s proposal was rejected by the Congress. p. 87 63 The draft proposals here published were tabled by Lenin at a sitting of the Programme Committee during the second discussion of the wording of §7 of the general political demands of the Party Programme (§6 of the Iskra draft). In the Iskra draft programme this paragraph contained a demand for the abolition of the social estates and full equality of rights for all citizens, regardless of sex, creed or race. During the initial discussion, the end of the paragraph had been reworded as follows: “Creed, race, nationality and language”, and was so tabled at the 16th sitting of the Congress on July 30 (August 12). During its discussion at the Congress, the Bundists demanded the inclusion in the Party Programme of a special point on the “equality of languages”. They succeeded in winning over a section of the vacillating Iskra supporters and there was a split when the proposal was put to the vote. The wording of §7 was again referred to the Programme Com- mittee. Lenin’s proposals with slight stylistic changes were adopted by the committee and on its behalf tabled at the 21st sitting of the Congress on August 1 (14). The Congress rejected the first point of the proposals and adopted the second with some amendments (§8 in the Programme adopted by the Congress); point three was adopted without alteration. Paragraph 11, of which Lenin spoke in point 3 of his proposals, had the following wording in the Iskra draft: “Free and compulsory general and vocational education for all children of either sex up to the age of 16. Provision of poor children with food, cloth- ing and study aids at the expense of the state.” The Programme Committee initially adopted this paragraph without amendment (§14), but during its discussion at the 18th sitting of the Congress on July 31 (August 13) the following addendum was adopted: “Instruction in the native language, on the demand of the population” (Vtoroi syezd R.S.D.R.P., 1959, p. 198). This addendum became superfluous with the adoption of a separate point on the question of language. p. 87 64 The point at issue is §2 of the section of the draft programme dealing with labour protection, which contained a demand for a statutory weekly period of rest running continuously for at least 36 hours, for wage-workers of either sex in all branches of 476 NOTES

the national economy. Lyadov proposed that the period should run for 42 hours; Lieber remarked that the programme said nothing about supervision in small-scale production. Lyadov’s proposal was adopted by the Congress, and Lieber’s amendment was rejected. p. 88 65 The point at issue is §12 of the section of the draft programme dealing with labour protection (§11 of the Iskra draft), which contained a demand for “supervision by the organs of local self- government, with the participation of workers’ delegates, over the sanitary state of the living quarters provided for workers by their employers, and also over the internal regulations on these premises and the terms of their lease, to safeguard wage- workers against intervention by employers in their life and activity as private persons and citizens”. Lyadov motioned the following addenda to this paragraph: 1) agrarian inspection to be established for supervision over all agricultural enterprises employing wage labour; 2) points 1-13 of the section of the programme dealing with labour protection to be extended to all agriculture with wage labour; 3) tenants holding land as sharecroppers, or indentured to cultivate the landowner’s land, to be regarded as wage-workers falling within the province of the agrarian inspection. The Congress rejected the first two addenda and Lyadov withdrew the third. p. 88 66 The amendment was motioned by Lenin during the discussion of the preamble of the draft programme on the agrarian question, which said: “For the purpose, however, of eliminating the survivals of the serf system, which are a heavy burden on the peasants, and in the interests of the free development of the class struggle in the countryside, the Party will work for....” The Congress adopted the amendment. p. 88 67 The point at issue is §1 of the draft programme on the agrarian question, which contained a demand for the “abolition of land redemption and quit-rent payments and all other services now borne by the peasants as a poll-tax paying estate”. Lyadov proposed the addition: “or other rural inhabitants, as poll-tax paying estates”. The amendment was rejected by the Congress. p. 89 68 During the debate on §2 of the draft programme on the agrarian question, which spoke of the need to abolish collective liability and all other laws hampering the peasant in his disposal of the land, Martynov asked this question: “How are we to understand the words: ‘his land’?” He believed that two interpretations of this point were possible: “1) every peasant has the right of redemption; in that case the interests of the commune are not infringed; 2) every peasant has the right to appropriate the land without redemption.” Following Lenin’s explanation, Martynov spoke again and said that he was not thinking about particulars but about the general principle: who was the owner of the land— the commune or the peasant? He went on: “If it is the commune then regarding it as a constraint on economic development, we NOTES 477

stand for the right of redemption. If it is the peasant, there is no need for redemption” (Vtoroi syezd R.S.D.R.P., 1959, p. 235). p. 89 69 Paragraph 4 of the draft programme on the agrarian question contained a demand for the “establishment of peasants’ committees: a) for the restitution to the village communes (by expropriation or, when the land has changed hands, by redemption by the state at the expense of gentry-owned large landed estates) of the land cut off from the peasants when serfdom was abolished and now used by the landlords as a means of keeping the peasants in bondage, b) for the elimination of the survivals of serf relations, which have been preserved in the Urals, in the Altai, in the Western territory and in other regions of the state...”. N. N. Jordania (Kostrov) motioned the following addendum to this point: “for the transfer into the ownership of the peasants in the Caucasus of the lands of which they have the use as temporarily bound, khizani, etc.” (Vtoroi syezd R.S.D.R.P., 1959, p. 243). The second proposal was motioned by B. M. Knunyants (Rusov) and M. N. Lyadov, who believed that it was possible for the programme to confine itself to a general statement of the need for eliminating the survivals of serf relations all over Russia. The amendment of D. A. Toputidze (Karsky), mentioned by Lenin in his speech, was not entered in the minutes of the Congress. The Congress adopted Jordania’s addendum. Khizani—the name given to the peasants of Georgia who settled on the lands of the landowners on specially agreed terms. The khizani were not officially regarded as serfs, and enjoyed personal freedom, but remained perpetual tenants without any rights. The 1861 Peasant Reform did not apply to them and they continued to be completely dependent on the landowners, who began to increase khizani services and confiscate the land they held. The khizani system was abolished after the Great October Socialist Revolution. Temporarily bound peasants—the name given to those former serf peasants who were compelled to perform certain services (quit-rent or corvée) for the use of their land even after the abolition of serfdom in 1861 and until they started paying redemption money to the landowner for their allotments. From the moment the redemption contract was concluded, the peasants ceased to be “temporarily bound” and became “peasant property-owners”. p. 90

70 Paragraph 5 of the draft programme on the agrarian question spoke of the need to empower the courts to reduce excessive rents and declare invalid transactions of an enslaving character. §16 of the section of the draft programme dealing with labour protection contained the demand for the establishment of industrial courts consisting of an equal number of workers’ and employers’ representatives in every branch of the national economy. p. 90

71 Lenin’s objection is against Lieber’s proposal to introduce into §5 of the draft programme on the agrarian question the demand to empower the courts to establish land-lease prices. p. 90 478 NOTES

72 During the debate on the first clause of §4 of the draft Rules— the order governing the appointment of members of the Party Council and the replacement of outgoing Council members—the Rules Committee failed to reach agreement and three formulations were put before the Congress. The first, motioned by L. Martov and V. A. Noskov (Glebov), said: “The Party Council shall be appointed by the Editorial Board of the Central Organ and the Central Committee, each of whom shall delegate two members to the Council; these four members of the Council shall invite the fifth; outgoing members of the Council shall be replaced by the institutions appointing them.” The second, tabled by V. I. Lenin and V. N. Rozanov (Popov), said: “The Party Council shall be appointed by the Congress from among the members of the Editorial Board of the Central Organ and the Central Committee and shall consist of five persons, with at least two of them from each of these collegiums. The Council itself shall replace the outgoing members of the Council.” The third, motioned by Y. Y. Levin (Yegorov), said: “The Congress shall elect two members of the C.C. and two of the Edito- rial Board of the Central Organ to the Council of the Party. These four elected members shall unanimously elect the fifth; outgoing members of the Council shall be replaced by the organisations to which they belong, with the exception of the fifth, who shall be replaced in the manner specified above.” As a result of the discussion of this question, the Congress adopted the following formulations: “4. The Congress shall appoint the fifth member of the Council, the Central Committee and the Editorial Board of the Central Organ. “5. The Council of the Party shall be appointed by the Editorial Board of the Central Organ and the C.C., each of whom shall delegate two members to the Council; outgoing members of the Council shall be replaced by the institutions appointing them, the fifth shall be replaced by the Council itself” (Vtoroi syezd R.S.D.R.P., 1959, p. 426). p. 91

73 In the discussion of the first clause of §4 of the draft rules, Vera Zasulich said: “The objection that the four members of the Council will be unable to elect the fifth is groundless: if an institution like the Council is unable to elect a fifth member, it means that it is altogether incapable of operating” (Vtoroi syezd R.S.D.R.P., 1959, p. 296). p. 91

74 The point at issue is §10 of the draft Rules, which says: “Every member of the Party and every person having any dealings with the Party shall have the right to demand that his statement, in its original form, is communicated to the Central Committee or to the Editorial Board of the Central Organ, or to the Party congress” (Vtoroi syezd R.S.D.R.P., 1959, p. 426). Lenin spoke against Martov’s proposal to remove the words “and every person having any dealings with the Party”. Martov’s proposal was rejected. p. 91 NOTES 479

75 The speech relates to §12 of the draft Party Rules dealing with the co-optation to the Party’s collegiate institutions, including the C.C. and the C.O. In his book One Step Forward, Two Steps Back Lenin wrote: “Greater strictness as regards the majority required for adoption of members (four-fifths instead of two-thirds), the requirement of unanimity for co-optation, mutual control over co-optation to the central bodies—all this we began to advocate when we found ourselves in the minority on the question of the personal composition of the central bodies” (see present edition, Vol. 7, p. 296). Martov came out against the proposal that the demand for the unanimity and mutual control of the C.C. and the C.O. in matters of co-optation should be written into the Rules. p. 91 76 Y. Y. Levin (Yegorov) objected to any qualification (two-thirds or four-fifths) of the majority necessary for co-optation to the Party’s collegiate institutions, believing that in the absence of any motivated protest the question could be decided by a simple majority. p. 91 77 Y. Y. Levin (Yegorov) said in his speech that the draft Rules were “lame” because they contained no point empowering the Party Council to decide on the question of co-optation to the Party central bodies. p. 92 78 A reference to the speeches of Trotsky and Martov objecting to Lenin’s proposal that §12 of the Party Rules should state that the C.C. and the C.O. Editorial Board could co-opt members only with the consent of all the members of the Party Council. p. 92 79 A reference to Martov’s proposal during the debate on §12 of the draft Rules: “In the event no unanimity is reached in co-opting new members to the C.C. or to the Editorial Board of the Central Organ, the question of the member’s admission may be referred to the Council, and in the event it annuls the decision of the collegium in question, the latter shall take a final decision by a simple majority” (Vtoroi syezd R.S.D.R.P., 1959, p. 311). p. 93 80 A reference to Martov’s words: “I propose that a majority dissatis- fied with a minority decision should be entitled to appeal to the Council for a decision” (Vtoroi syezd R.S.D.R.P., 1959, p. 311). Martov’s amendment was adopted by the Congress by 24 votes to 23. p. 93 81 The League of Russian Revolutionary Social-Democracy Abroad was founded in October 1901 on Lenin’s initiative. Affiliated to the League were the Iskra organisation abroad and the Sotsial-Demokrat revolutionary organisation which included the Emancipation of Labour group. The task of the League was to spread the ideas of revolutionary Social-Democracy and to help create a militant Soci- al-Democratic organisation. Under its Rules, the League was the Iskra organisation abroad. It recruited Iskra supporters from among Russian Social-Democrats abroad, gave Iskra material assistance, organised the delivery of the newspaper to Russia and published popular Marxist literature. The Second Congress 480 NOTES

of the R.S.D.L.P. confirmed the League as the only Party organisation abroad with the status of a committee, authorising it to work under the guidance and control of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee. After the Second Congress, the Mensheviks entrenched themselves in the League and launched a struggle against Lenin and the Bol- sheviks. At the League’s Second Congress in October 1903, the Mensheviks secured the adoption of new Rules aimed against the Party Rules, as approved by the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. From then on the League became a Menshevik stronghold. It operated until 1905. p. 93 82 In his speech Lenin replies to V. A. Noskov (Glebov) and L. G. Deutsch, who proposed that §13 (on the recognition of the League of Russian Revolutionary Social-Democracy Abroad as the only R.S.D.L.P. organisation abroad, and on its tasks) should not be included in the Rules, but referred for discussion to the Central Committee (Glebov) or to the Party Council (Deutsch). §13 of the Rules was adopted by 31 votes to 12, with 6 absten- tions. p. 93 83 Following the approval by the Congress of §13 of the Rules, recognising the League of Russian Revolutionary Social-Democracy Abroad as the R.S.D.L.P. only organisation abroad, delegates of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad, Martynov and Akimov, informed the Bureau of the Congress that they would not take part in the voting and would attend the Congress only to hear the minutes of earlier sittings and to discuss the manner of their publication. Their statement was read out at the 27th sitting of the Congress on August 5 (18). The Congress invited Akimov and Martynov to withdraw their statement, but they rejected the proposal and walked out. Lenin did not move the draft resolution at the Congress. In the original the draft is crossed out. The reason may have been that the Bureau of the Congress had decided to refer the question for discussion at the Congress. p. 93 84 The Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad was founded in 1894 on the initiative of the Emancipation of Labour group, on the understanding that all its members accept the programme of the group. The First Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. recognised the Union as the Party’s representative abroad. Subsequently opportunist elements—Economists (the so-called “young”)—gained the upper hand in the Union. The opportunist majority of the First Congress of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad, held at Zurich in November 1898, refuged to voice solidarity with the Manifesto of the First Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. In view of this, the Eman- cipation of Labour group announced at the Congress its refusal to edit publications of the Union, with the exception of No. 5-6 of Rabotnik which had been prepared for the press, and Lenin’s pamphlets, The Tasks of Russian Social-Democrats and The New NOTES 481

Factory Law. In April 1899, the Union started to publish the magazine Rabocheye Dyelo on whose Editorial Board were the Economists B. N. Krichevsky, V. P. Ivanshin and P. F. Teplov. The Union voiced its sympathy with E. Bernstein, the Mille- randists, etc. The struggle within the Union continued until its Second Congress in April 1900 and at the Congress. The Emancipation of Labour group and its followers walked out from the Congress and formed an independent organisation called Sotsial-Demokrat. At the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., representatives of the Union (Rabocheye Dyelo supporters) adopted an extremely opportunist stand and walked out when the Congress recognised the League of Russian Revolutionary Social-Democracy Abroad as the Party’s only organisation abroad. The Union was dissolved by a decision of the Second Congress (see Vtoroi syezd R.S.D.R.P., 1959, p. 438). p. 94 85 A reference to the Iskra majority, which took final shape at the Congress by the time of the election to the C.C., when the “soft” Iskra followers had split away and the Bund delegates and the two Rabocheye Dyelo supporters walked out. p. 95 86 B. M. Knunyants (Rusov) motioned a proposal to start elections to the Party Central Committee. p. 95 87 The Congress adopted two resolutions on the question of the attitude to the liberals: the first was motioned by Potresov (Starover), the second, by Lenin, Plekhanov and 13 other delegates (for Plekhanov’s draft with Lenin’s amendment see Lenin Miscel- lany VI, pp. 177-78). Lenin subsequently wrote: “The views of the old Iskra were much better expressed in Plekhanov’s resolution, which emphasised the anti-revolutionary and anti-proletarian character of the liberal Osvobozhdeniye, than in the confused resolution tabled by Starover, which, on the one hand, aimed (quite inopportunely) at an ‘agreement’ with the liberals, and, on the other, stipulated for it conditions that were manifestly unreal, being altogether impossible for the liberals to fulfil” (see present edition, Vol. 7, p. 498). p. 96 88 Osvobozhdeniye (Emancipation)—a fortnightly journal published abroad from June 18 (July 1), 1902 to October 5 (18), 1905, under the editorship of P. B. Struve. It was the organ of the Russian liberal bourgeoisie and expounded the ideas of moderate-monarchist liberalism. In 1903 the Osvobozhdeniye League formed round the journal (officially it came into existence in January 1904). The League existed until October 1905. The followers of Osvo- bozhdeniye and the Zemstvo constitutionalists made up the core of the Constitutional-Democratic (Cadet) Party—the principal bourgeois party in Russia, which was formed in October 1905. p. 96 89 The State Council—one of the higher state bodies in pre-revolutionary Russia. Set up in 1810 on a proposal by M. M. Speransky as a consultative and legislative institution whose members were 482 NOTES

appointed and confirmed by the tsar. It was reorganised by the law of February 20 (March 5), 1906, and was given the right to approve or reject bills after the debate in the Duma, but the tsar retained the power to amend the fundamental laws and issue some of the more important ones. From 1906, one half of the State Council consisted of elected representatives of the gentry, the clergy and the big bourgeoisie, and the other from the senior civil servants appointed by the tsar. This made it a highly reactionary institution which rejected even the moderate bills adopted by the Duma. p. 98

90 The Second Congress of the League of Russian Revolutionary Social- Democracy Abroad was held at Geneva from October 13 to 18 (26-31), 1903. It was called at the insistence of the Mensheviks who wanted to oppose it to the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. Lenin objected to its convocation and wrote: “A League Congress now will generate more heat than light, i.e., it will contribute nothing to the work abroad” (see present edition, Vol. 34, p. 176). The congress of the League was attended by 15 supporters of the majority led by Lenin (14 from the second sitting), who had 18 votes, and by 18 Mensheviks (19 from the second sitting) with 22 votes. The congress discussed the following questions: 1) report by the administration of the League Abroad; 2) report by the League’s delegate at the Second Party Congress; 3) the League’s Rules; 4) elections of the administration. The central question of the agenda was a report by Lenin, who had been the League’s delegate at the Party Congress. He described the work of the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. and exposed the opportunism of the Mensheviks, showing their unprincipled behaviour at the Congress. (For Lenin’s report and speeches see present edition, Vol. 7, pp. 69-85.) Taking advantage of their majority at the League congress, the opposition decided to have Martov as a co-rapporteur. Martov spoke out in defence of the Mensheviks’ behaviour at the R.S.D.L.P. Second Congress and made slanderous accusations against the Bolsheviks. Realising that it was futile and impossible to continue the polemic against the opposition, Lenin and the supporters of the majority left the congress and refused to take part in any further debates on this question. The Menshevik majority at the congress, in an effort to secure the Party’s central bodies, adopted three resolutions on the second item of the agenda, in which it opposed Lenin’s approach to organisational questions and called for sustained struggle against the Bolsheviks. The congress also adopted the League’s Rules, some of which were aimed against the Party Rules (such as publication of general Party literature under the League’s auspices, relations between the League’s administration and other organisations, bypassing the C.C. and the C.O.); the Mensheviks also contested the right of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee to approve the League’s Rules. F. V. Lengnik, the representative of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee who attended the congress, demanded on behalf of the Central Committee that the League’s Rules should be brought NOTES 483

into line with the Party Rules, and when the opposition refused to do so, declared the assembly invalid and walked out. The Party Council approved of his action (see p. 107 of this volume). Lenin said that the congress of the League was the “climax of the opposition’s campaign against the central bodies” (see present edition, Vol. 7, p. 122). After the League’s Second-Congress, the Mensheviks turned it into a stronghold in their fight against the Party. The “Preparatory Material” section in Vol. 41 of the Fifth Russian edition of Lenin’s Collected Works contains two relevant documents: an outline-plan of Lenin’s report on the Second Con- gress of the R.S.D.L.P. at the League congress, and Lenin’s notes at the first sitting of the League congress. p. 104

91 This is in reply to L. G. Deutsch’s proposal on item 3 of the agenda substitute “amendment of the Rules” for “working out the Rules”. The working out of a new set of rules for the League was a question of principle. The League’s old Rules (1901), drawn up at a time when the Party was not yet a single whole, no longer met the new demands. The Party Rules adopted at the Second R.S.D.L.P. Congress gave the League the same rights as the Party committees, with the exception, however, that it could support the Russian revolutionary movement only through persons and groups specially appointed by the Central Committee (see K.P.S.S. v rezolutsiyakh i resheniyakh syezdov, konferentsii i plenumov TsK, Part I, 1954, p. 47). In his consistent efforts to have the decisions of the Second R.S.D.L.P. Congress implemented, Lenin demanded the working out of a new set of rules for the League in accordance with the Party Rules. p. 104 92 A reference to L. Martov’s proposal that he should be allowed to give a co-report on the Party’s Second Congress. p. 105 93 L. Martov’s pamphlet, The Struggle Against the “State of Siege” in the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, was issued at Geneva in 1904. p. 106 94 A reference to Trotsky’s efforts, with the aid of various sophisms and arbitrary interpretations of the Party Rules, to show that the League Abroad was empowered to approve the draft of the League’s Rules the congress was debating, independently of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee. p. 106

95 A reference to §6 of the R.S.D.L.P. Rules adopted by the Party’s Second Congress (see K.P.S.S. v rezolutsiyakh i resheniyakh syezdov, konferentsii i plenumov TsK, Part I, 1954, p. 46). p. 106

96 The resolution motioned by L. Y. Galperin (Konyagin), which the Bolsheviks supported, said that the League Rules would enter into force upon their approval by the Central Committee. This resolution was drawn up in accordance with the R.S.D.L.P. Rules and safeguarded the principles of democratic centralism in the Party. 484 NOTES

Martov’s resolution, adopted by the opportunist majority of the League congress, was based on the assumption that the League had the right to adopt its own Rules without preliminary approval by the Party Central Committee. p. 107 97 A reference to F. V. Lengnik. See Note 90. p. 107 98 The R.S.D.L.P. Council, which met at Geneva from January 15 (28) to 17 (30), 1904, was “called on the initiative of the C.O. representatives for the purpose of discussing measures to co-ordinate the activity of the C.C. and the C.O. in the publication of Party literature” (Lenin Miscellany X, p. 181—minutes of the Council’s sittings). The Council’s sittings were attended by V. I. Lenin, F. V. Lengnik, G. V. Plekhanov, P. B. Axelrod and L. Martov. On a motion by Lenin, the Party Council decided to include in the agenda and to discuss first the question of measures to restore peace in the Party. On behalf of the Central Committee, Lenin motioned a draft resolution on the question on January 15 (28) (see present edition, Vol. 7, pp. 145-47). When the debate showed the Mensheviks’ negative attitude to the resolution, Lenin and Lengnik motioned another draft resolution on restoring peace in the Party on January 16 (29) (see p. 109), which was adopted by the Council by three votes (Lenin, Lengnik and Plekhanov) to two (Martov and Axelrod). But instead of proceeding to a concrete discussion of the question of restoring peace in the Party, the Council, over Lenin’s protest, went to vote Plekhanov’s resolution demanding the co-optation of the Mensheviks to the Central Com- mittee. The resolution was adopted by the votes of Plekhanov, Martov and Axelrod. Accordingly, the C.C. representatives (Lenin and Lengnik) entered a minority opinion on January 17 (30) censuring Plekhanov’s resolution which ignored the will of the majority at the Party’s Second Congress. The minority opinion was written by Lenin (see present edition, Vol. 7, pp. 148-51). When the Mensheviks had frustrated every effort to establish peace in the Party, Lenin motioned a draft resolution on the convocation of the Party’s Third Congress as the only way out of the situation (see present edition, Vol. 7, p. 152). By the votes of Plekhanov, Martov and Axelrod, this resolution was rejected and one by Martov against the convocation of the Party congress adopted. Nor was any agreement reached between the representatives of the C.C. and the Mensheviks on the publication of Party literature. The Party Council rejected the resolutions on this question motioned by Lenin and adopted the resolutions approving of the factional and disorganising activity of the Editorial Board of the Menshevik Iskra. The Council’s January sitting showed that with Plekhanov’s switch to the Mensheviks’ side, the R.S.D.L.P. Council became an instrument in the Menshevik fight against the Party. p. 108

99 A reference to the draft resolution on measures to restore peace in the Party. Lenin insisted that his resolution should be put NOTES 485

to the vote before Plekhanov’s, who was proposing the co-optation of Mensheviks to the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee. p. 108 100 A reference to Martov’s speech on the voting of the resolutions motioned by Lenin and by Plekhanov. While admitting that Lenin had the legitimate right to demand that his resolution should be voted on first, Martov nevertheless proposed the following change in the approach to the question: 1) Is it necessary to issue a call to all the members of the Party? 2) Plekhanov’s concrete proposal. p. 108 101 Martov’s resolution was aimed against the minority opinion entered on January 17 (30), 1904, by the C.C. representatives Lenin and Lengnik over the Party Council’s resolution motioned by Plekhanov on the co-optation of Mensheviks to the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee (see present edition, Vol. 7, pp. 148-51). In his resolution Martov proposed that Lenin and Lengnik should be censured for entering their minority opinion. In the course of the debate that followed, Martov was forced to withdraw his resolution and to adhere to Plekhanov’s resolution, which was somewhat different in form, and which was adopted by the Menshevik votes. p. 110

102 This was written by Lenin in connection with the decision by the “Group of Founders” to set up a library and archives of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee at Geneva. Together with the appeal of the “Group of Founders” for assistance in organising the Party library and archives, it was published in a leaflet “To One and All” (put out by the Party printing-press in Geneva). On February 7 (20), 1904, Lenin, as a member of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee, signed the “Regulations of the Library and Archives of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee” (the document is written in V. D. Bonch-Bruyevich’s hand). Later Lenin wrote the “Statement by the Group of Founders of the R.S.D.L.P. Library at Geneva” on the transfer of the R.S.D.L.P. library to the Majority Committees’ Bureau (see p. 136). The next sitting of the M.C.B., on Lenin’s motion, confirmed the members of the earlier “Group of Founders” as the supervisory committee of the library and archives of the R.S.D.L.P. A report on this committee’s activity was submitted to the Party Congress (see Trety syezd R.S.D.R.P. Protokoly, Moscow, 1959, pp. 533-37). The library was in existence for 13 years, until the February 1917 revolution. At present, the collections of the library and the archives of the R.S.D.L.P. are at the Institute of Marxism- Leninism of the C.P.S.U. Central Committee. p. 111

103 This was written by Lenin a week after the outbreak of the Russo- Japanese War and was circulated to the Party committees in a number of cities in Russia with instructions to have it immediately reprinted and spread. N. K. Krupskaya informed I. Kh. Lalayants, L. B. Krasin and L. M. Knipovich about the dispatch of the leaflet in her letters on February 3 (16) and 4 (17), 1904 (Archives of the 486 NOTES

Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the C.P.S.U. Central Committee and Lenin Miscellany X, pp. 323, 324). On February 16 (29), 1904, she wrote to R. S. Zemlyachka and L. Y. Galperin: “Starik (V. I. Lenin.—Ed.) has written a leaflet about the war; it was not distributed here, and was sent for reprinting in Tomsk, Moscow, Odessa, St. Petersburg, Samara, Saratov, Nizhny Novgorod and Yekaterinoslav” (Central State Historical Archives in Moscow). At the library of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism there are many copies of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee’s leaflet “To the Russian Proletariat”: there are copies bearing the seal of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee, the seals of the Moscow and Yekaterinoslav committees of the R.S.D.L.P.; the leaflet was reprinted and distributed by the Nizhny Novgorod (7,700 copies), Tver and Saratov committees, and by students in Kiev. In addition, it was reprinted in Iskra No. 61 on March 5 (18), 1904. p. 111

104 Following the Sino-Japanese War (1894-95), the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki forced China to cede the Liaotung Peninsula and the islands of Penghuletao (Pescadores) and Taiwan to Japan, to undertake to pay an indemnity of 200 million liang (subsequently increased to 230 million liang) and to grant Japan a number of economic privileges. Fearful of Japan’s growing strength, Russia, France and Germany issued a protest over the Treaty of Shimono- seki and this forced Japan to abandon the idea of annexing the Liaotung Peninsula. p. 113 105 These outlines were the basis of a report on the Paris Commune given by Lenin at Geneva on March 9 (22), 1904. They were written after a thorough study of Karl Marx’s The Civil War in France (see Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. I, Moscow, 1962, pp. 473- 545). All of Lenin’s references are to the Berlin edition of 1891. He also makes use of Lissagaray’s History of the Commune of 187 1 and Weill’s History of the Social Movement in France (185?- 190?). On the basis of these outlines Lenin wrote a “Plan of a Lecture on the Commune” in 1905 (see present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 206-08). Here turned again and again to the Paris Commune (see, for instance, the articles “Lessons of the Commune” and “In Memory of the Commune”, and Chapter III of the book The State and Revolu- tion—present edition, Vol. 13, pp. 475-78, Vol. 17, pp. 139-43, Vol. 25, pp. 418-37). p. 113 106 Engels’s “Introduction to Marx’s The Civil War in France” (see Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. I, Moscow, 1962, p. 475). p. 114 107 I.A.A. (Internationale Arbeiter Association)—the International Working Men’s Association (First International)—the first international mass organisation of the proletariat set up at an international workers’ meeting in London called by British and French workers in 1864. Karl Marx was the organiser and leader of the First International, and wrote its Inaugural Address, Rules and other programme and tactical documents. The establishment of the First International was the result of long and persistent efforts NOTES 487

by Marx and Engels to organise a working-class revolutionary party, Lenin said that the First International “laid the foundation of an international organisation of the workers for the preparation of their revolutionary attack on capital” and “laid the foundation of the proletarian international struggle for socialism” (see present edition, Vol. 29, pp. 306, 307). The central governing body of the First International was its General Council, of which Karl Marx was a member throughout. He did a great deal to overcome the petty-bourgeois influences and sectarian tendencies which then prevailed in the labour movement (trade unionism in Britain, Proudhonism and anarchism in Romance countries and Lassalleanism in Germany) and rallied the advanced workers in Europe and America round the principles of scientific socialism. The First International directed the economic and political struggle of workers in various countries and strengthened their international solidarity. It also played a great part in spreading Marxism and introducing socialism into the working- class movement. After the defeat of the Paris Commune, the working class was faced with the task of setting up mass national parties on the basis of the principles put forward by the First International. In 1873 Marx wrote: “As I view European conditions it is quite useful to let the formal organisation of the International recede into the background for the time being” (see Marx’s letter to F. A. Sorge, September 27, 1873) (Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1965, p. 286). The First International was officially dissolved at the Philadelphia Conference in 1876. p. 114 108 The world industrial exposition where a delegation of French workers met British workers. p. 114 109 Proudhonism—an unscientific, anti-Marxist trend of petty-bourgeois socialism named after the French anarchist Proudhon. Marx and Engels waged a consistent struggle against Proudhon’s attempts to impose his views on the First International. Proudhonism was subjected to withering criticism by Marx in The Poverty of Philos- ophy. The resolute struggle conducted by Marx, Engels and their supporters against Proudhonism within the First International ended in the full triumph of Marxism over Proudhonism. Lenin said Proudhonism was the “stupidity of the petty bourgeois and the philistine”, incapable of accepting the working- class standpoint. Proudhonist ideas have been widely used by bourgeois “theorists” to advocate class collaboration. p. 114 110 Blanquism—a trend in the French socialist movement led by the outstanding revolutionary and prominent French utopian Com- munist, Louis Auguste Blanqui (1805-1881). Lenin wrote that the Blanquists hoped “that mankind will be emancipated from wage slavery, not by the proletarian class struggle, but through a conspiracy hatched by a small minority of intellectuals” (see present edition, Vol. 10, p. 392). They substituted action by a secret group of plotters for the activity of a revolutionary party, failed to take account of the concrete situa- 488 NOTES

tion in which an uprising could be victorious, and neglected to maintain ties with the masses. p. 114 111 Engels’s “Introduction to Marx’s Civil War in France” (see Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. I, Moscow, 1962, pp. 475-76). p. 114 112 La débâcle (1892)—Émile Zola’s novel describing the Franco- Prussian War. p. 115 113 A reference to the manifesto issued by the Central Committee of the Social-Democratic Workers’ Party of Germany on Septem- ber 5, 1870. p. 115 114 Marx, “Second Address of the General Council of the International Working Men’s Association on the Franco-Prussian War” (see Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. I, Moscow, 1962, pp. 491-98). p. 115 115 Marx, The Civil War in France (see Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. I, Moscow, 1962, pp. 473-545). p. 115 116 Alphonse-Simon Guiod, commander of the Paris army artillery, wrote to artillery division General Susane that he could take his protégé on his staff where he would be bored by the inaction, or he could send him to Mont Valérien where only a pretence was made of firing off the guns. This letter, published by the Commune in No. 115 of Journal Officiel de la République Française (Official Journal of the French Republic) on April 25, 1871, showed that the “government of national defence” merely pretended that it was defending Paris. Also see Marx, The Civil War in France (Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. I, Moscow, 1962, pp. 500- 01). p. 115

117 A reference to Leo Frankel, a jeweller, who was one of the leaders of the German workers’ alliance in France, a prominent leader of the Hungarian and international working-class movement and the founder of the first Hungarian Socialist Labour Party. p. 117

118 The expression “ticket-of-leave men” was used by Marx in The Civil War in France where he says the following about Thiers’ ministers: “These men, then, could find, in the ruins of Paris only, their tickets-of-leave: they were the very men Bismarck wanted.... In England common criminals are often discharged on parole after serving the greater part of their term, and are placed under police surveillance. On such discharge they receive a certificate called ticket-of-leave, their possessors being referred to as ticket-of- leave men” (see Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. I, Moscow, 1962, p. 502). p. 121

119 The letters of Dupont, corresponding secretary of the General Council of the First International, are given in Weill’s History of the Social Movement in France (185?-190?). In his “Plan of a Lecture on the Commune” Lenin mentions Dupont’s letter of September 7, 1870 (see present edition, Vol. 8, p. 207) p. 121 NOTES 489

120 The figures on the number of Communards convicted by courts are taken from Lissagaray’s History of the Commune of 1871. p. 122

121 The R.S.D.L.P. Council met at Geneva on May 31 and June 5 (June 13 and 18), 1904, with V. I. Lenin, G. V. Plekhanov (Chair- man), Y. A. Noskov, P. B. Axelrod and L. Martov present. At its first sitting it discussed the questions of calling an inter-party conference of revolutionary and opposition organisations of Rus- sia, and of the forthcoming international congress at Amsterdam. The second sitting was devoted to a discussion of internal Party questions: 1) the right of the Party’s central bodies (C.C. and C.O.) to recall their representatives from the Party Council; 2) co-optation to the committees and the Central Committee’s right to seat new members on them; 3) procedure governing the voting by Party organisations on the convocation of the Party’s Third Congress; 4) publication of the minutes of Council sittings, etc. In view of the fact that three of the five Council members (Plekhanov, Axelrod and Martov) represented the Menshevik opposition, while Noskov took a conciliatory stand, the Party Council adopted Menshevik decisions on the most important internal Party matters (for Lenin’s speeches at the R.S.D.L.P. Council see present edition, Vol. 7, pp. 433-42). p. 122

122 The Inter-Party Conference of Opposition and Revolutionary Organ- isations of Russia, called on the initiative of the Finnish Party of Active Resistance, was held at the end of 1904. The representatives of the R.S.D.L.P. and several other Social-Democratic parties and organisations of Russia met at Amsterdam in August 1904, before the International Socialist Congress opened, and decided not to attend the inter-Party conference. For the R.S.D.L.P., this decision was approved by the Party Council sitting on August 21 (September 3), 1904. p. 122

123 The Latvian Social-Democratic Labour Organisation of the Baltic Area was set up in April 1902 through the merger of several Social- Democratic organisations. On its basis, the First Congress of Latvian Social-Democratic Organisations, held from June 7 to 9 (20-22), 1904, set up the Latvian Social-Democratic Labour Party which joined the R.S.D.L.P. at the Fourth (Unity) Congress in 1906. The Latvian Social-Democratic Union, set up in the autumn of 1900 abroad, was akin in its demands to the Russian Socialist- Revolutionaries and was largely permeated with nationalistic tendencies. In 1905, the Union gained some temporary influence among a section of the peasants, but was soon ousted by the Lat- vian Social-Democratic Labour Party. The Union subsequently played no noticeable role of any kind. p. 122

124 A reference to the Armenian Social-Democratic Labour Organisation (Specifics), which was set up by Armenian national-federalist elements soon after the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. Like the Bundists, the Specifics wanted the Party organised on the 490 NOTES

federal principle, which implied a division of the proletariat on national lines, and declared themselves to be the sole representatives of the Armenian proletariat. They tried to justify their nationalism by referring to the “specific conditions of each nation”. In a letter to the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee over the conference of Social-Democratic organisations in Russia called for September 1905, Lenin wrote: “I strongly warn you against the Armenian Social-Democratic Federation. If you have agreed to its participation in the conference, you have made a fatal mistake, which must be rectified at all costs. It is represented in Geneva by a couple of disrupters who publish sheer trivia here and have no serious connections with the Caucasus. It is a Bund creatura, nothing more, specially invented to cultivate Caucasian Bundism.... All the Caucasian comrades are against this gang of disruptive writers...” (see present edition, Vol. 34, p. 337). p. 122 125 A reference to Martov’s proposal at the first sitting of the Party Council calling for the adoption of a resolution to have all decisions involving principle, at the inter-party conference, adopted only unanimously. p. 122 126 A remark Lenin made in connection with Martov’s resolution inviting all Party organisations to send to the Party Council their mandates for the Amsterdam Congress of the Second Interna- tional, and also to submit reports on local activity for the drawing up of a general report. Martov was followed by Plekhanov who said there was no time to wait for local reports and proposed that someone should be asked to draw up a report right away. p. 123 127 A reference to the newspaper Veratsnutyun (Renascence), organ of the Gnchak, the Armenian petty-bourgeois nationalist party. It was published in Rus0uk, Bulgaria, in 1903 and 1904. p. 124 128 A reference to Martov’s assertion that the minority of the Moscow Committee had proposed the co-optation not of one but of two of their members. p. 124 129 Under the Party Rules adopted by the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., only those organisations which had been confirmed not less than a year before the congress enjoyed the right of representation on it. On the strength of this, V. A. Noskov (Glebov) said at the second sitting of the Party Council that the votes of the Tver and Riga committees were invalid in deciding on the convocation of the Party’s Third Congress. p. 125 130 The Caucasian League of the R.S.D.L.P. was set up at the First Congress of Caucasian Social-Democratic Organisations at Tiflis in March 1903, on the initiative of the Tiflis and the Baku committees of the R.S.D.L.P. It was attended by 15 delegates from the Tiflis, Baku, Batum, Kutais and other Social-Democratic organisations in Transcaucasia. It elected the League’s 9-man governing body, the Caucasian Union Committee of the R.S.D.L.P., and approved the political line of the Leninist Iskra; it adopted as NOTES 491

a basis for activity by Social-Democratic organisations in Trans- caucasia the draft Party programme worked out by Iskra and Zarya. At the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., there were three delegates from the Caucasian League, who had been instructed to defend the programme, organisational and tactical principles of the Leninist Iskra. From the outset, the Caucasian Union Com- mittee of the R.S.D.L.P. established close ties with Lenin and provided firm support for the Bolsheviks in their struggle against the Menshevik opposition. The League took an active part in preparing the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., and its representatives were on the Majority Committees’ Bureau, which made the practical preparations for the Third Congress. The League played an important part in organising the labour movement in Transcaucasia before and during the first revolution in Russia. It did a great service in educating the workers of the multi-national Caucasus in the spirit of proletarian internationalism. In February 1906, the League was dissolved in view of the establishment of united committees of the Bolshevik and the Menshevik factions. p. 125 131 A reference to Martov’s proposal at the second sitting of the Party Council to give the Samara, Smolensk, Bryansk and Astrakhan committees the same status as that accorded to those which had attended the Congress, that is, the right to vote in deciding on the convocation of a Party congress. p. 125 132 Martov proposed that the Caucasian League should be given the right to vote for a congress, as of September 1903, when its Rules had been approved. p. 126 133 A reference to the decision taken by the January 1904 sitting of the Party Council to publish the Council’s minutes. p. 126 134 On June 5 (18), 1904, the Party Council—by the votes of the Mensheviks G. V. Plekhanov, L. Martov and P. B. Axelrod, and the conciliator V. A. Noskov (Glebov)—decided against publishing the Council’s minutes. p. 127 135 A reference to the appeal “To the Party”, adopted by a conference of 22 Bolsheviks and published as a separate leaflet by the Riga Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. in August 1904 (see present edition, Vol. 7, pp. 452-59). p. 127 136 A reference to the Central Committee’s “July Declaration”, a resolution adopted by the conciliator members of the Central Commit- tee—L. B. Krasin, V. A. Noskov and L. Y. Galperin—in July 1904. It consisted of 26 points, nine of which were published in Iskra No. 72 of August 25 (September 7), 1904, under the title “Declaration of the Central Committee”. The resolution was adopted illegally, without the knowledge of two C.C. members: V. I. Lenin, who was in Switzerland, and R. S. Zemlyachka. They were thereby deprived of the possibility of standing up for the Party majority’s view in the Central Committee. In this reso- 492 NOTES

lution, the conciliators voiced their recognition of the Menshevik Editorial Board of the new Iskra, whom Plekhanov had co-opted. Three more conciliators were co-opted to the Central Commlttee: A. I. Lyubimov, L. Y. Karpov, and I. F. Dubrovinsky. The conciliators came out against convening the Third Party Congress and dissolved the Central Committee’s Southern Bureau, which had been campaigning for the Congress. They stripped Lenin of his rights as the Party Central Committee representative abroad, and prohibited the publication of his works without the permission of the C.C. collegium. The adoption of the “July Declaration” marked a complete betrayal of the decisions of the Second R.S.D.L.P. Congress by the conciliator members of the Central Committee and their open switch to the Menshevik side. Lenin issued a sharp protest against the “July Declaration”. In his letter “To Five Members of the Central Committee” and his pamphlet Statement and Documents on the Break of the Central Institutions with the Party, Lenin esposed the illegal acts of the three members of the Central Committee (see present edition, Vol. 7, pp. 460-61, 527-33). Lenin was supported by the Party’s local committees—St. Petersburg, Moscow, Riga, Baku, Tiflis, Imeretia and Mingrelia, Nikolayev, Odessa, and Yekaterinoslav— which resolutely condemned the “July Declaration”. p. 128 137 A reference to the Menshevik Iskra. The Editorial Board of the Party’s Central Organ, consisting of V. I. Lenin, G. V. Plekhanov and L. Martov, was approved at the Second Party Congress. But contrary to the Congress decision, the Menshevik Martov refused to sit on the Board without the old Menshevik editors (P. B. Axel- rod, A. N. Potresov and V. I. Zasulich), who had not been elected by the Second Congress; so Iskra’s Nos. 46 to 51 came out under the editorship of Lenin and Plekhanov. The latter subsequently switched to the Menshevik stand and demanded the inclusion on the Board of the old Menshevik editors who had been rejected by the Congress. Lenin could not accept this and withdrew from the Iskra Editorial Board on October 19 (November 1), 1903; he was co-opted to the Central Committee and from there started a struggle against the Menshevik opportunists. Iskra’s No. 52 was issued under the editorship of Plekhanov alone, and on November 13 (26), 1903, Plekhanov rode roughshod over the will of the Second Congress by co-opting Axelrod, Potresov and Zasu- lich. From its No. 52, Iskra ceased to be a militant organ of the revolutionary Marxists. The Mensheviks turned it into an organ for fighting Marxism and the Party, and a mouthpiece of opportunism. p. 128 138 The Bonch-Bruyevich and Lenin Publishing House of Social-Democrat- ic Party Literature was set up by the Bolsheviks at the end of the summer of 1904, when Iskra’s Menshevik Board refused to publish statements by Party organisations and members in support of the decisions of the Second Party Congress and in favour of convening the Third Party Congress. The Publishers were given assistance by local Majority Committees. p. 128 NOTES 493

139 There is no information about Lenin’s having either written the work or given a lecture on the subject. The date has been approxi- mated from the fact that the MS. is on the reverse of the MS. of Lenin’s remarks to Rosa Luxemburg’s article “The Organisa- tional Questions of Russian Social-Democracy”, which was published in No. 69 of Iskra on July 10, 1904. The material on the study of the works by authors whom Lenin mentions in the two plans is published in Lenin Miscellany XXXII. This material was also used by Lenin for his lectures on “Marxist Views of the Agrarian Question in Europe and Russia”, which he gave at the Russian Higher School of Social Sciences in Paris from February 10 to 13 (23 to 26), 1903 (see Lenin Miscellany XIX, pp. 225-48). p. 129

140 Engels criticised the agrarian programmes of the French and German Social-Democratic parties in his work The Peasant Question in France and Germany (see Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. II, Moscow, 1962, pp. 420-40). p. 130 141 In the autumn of 1904, the Geneva group of Bolsheviks set up, on Lenin’s initiative, a propagandists’ circle which was largely made up of grass-root Party workers—working-men and young people without theoretical knowledge. The aim was to train men for work in Russia, and the studies were in the form of reports and lectures. Lenin was the head of the circle, and conducted the studies on the Party Programme. Classes were soon stopped when some of the comrades went back to Russia in view of the outbreak of the revolution. A number of documents characterising the work of the circle are at the Central Party Archives of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism. Lenin’s notes, plans of talks and records of the debates on the lectures are published in Lenin Miscellany XV, pp. 283-85, 287. p. 131

142 The meeting was held in the port of London on August 14, 1889, in connection with the start of the dock-workers’ strike for higher per-hour wages and at least four hours of work a day. Ten thousand workers (including some unemployed) were involved in the strike. They set up a strike committee, whose secretary was Eleanor Marx-Aveling, Karl Marx’s daughter. The strikers had the support of workers in Britain, Australia and a number of European ports. During the strike, the first dock-workers’ union was set up, with branches in all the major British ports. The strike continued for five weeks and ended when all the workers’ demands were met. It gave an impetus to the development of trade unions and was a turning-point in the British labour movement. p. 132 143 This is the initial variant and the final text of the “Note by the Vperyod Editorial Board to the Letter of Their St. Petersburg Correspondent”, which has not been found. It was apparently to have gone into the newspaper’s issue No. 4 or No. 5, but the January 9, 1905 events must have crowded out the other reports, and then the letter was too old to print. 494 NOTES

Vperyod—an illegal Bolshevik weekly, published in Geneva from December 22, 1904 (January 4, 1905) to May 5 (18), 1905 Eighteen issues appeared, with the printing of 7,000 to 10,000 copies. It was organised and run by Lenin, who had also proposed the newspaper’s name. On its Editorial Board were V. V. Vorovsky, M. S. Olminsky and A. V. Lunacharsky. The paper’s correspondence with local committees in Russia and its reporters was handled by N. K. Krupskaya. Lenin defined the content of the paper as follows: “The line of Vperyod is the line of the old ‘Iskra’. In the name of the old Iskra, Vperyod resolutely combats the new Iskra” (see present edition, Vol. 8, p. 130). Lenin not only wrote the leading articles but also a great number of notes, and edited many reports. He wrote some of the articles together with other members of the Board (Vorovsky, Olminsky and others). The MS.s of various authors which have been preserved show the heavy editing and extensive insertions made by Lenin, who always read the page proofs. Even when he was engrossed in the work of the Third Congress in London, he found the time to read the page proofs of No. 17. Issue No. 18 appears not to have been read by him in view of his departure from London to Geneva. More than 60 articles and notes by Lenin were carried in Vperyod, and some of its issues—such as Nos. 4 and 5, dealing with the January 9 events and the start of the revolution in Russia—were almost entirely done up by Lenin The Third Congress passed a special resolution with a vote of thanks, noting the outstanding part played by Vperyod in the struggle against the Mensheviks, for the restoration of the Party principle, in the raising and elucidating of the tactical questions brought out by the revolutionary movement, and in the struggle for the convocation of the Congress. Under a decision of the Third Congress, Proletary was published as the Central Organ of the Party and a direct successor of Vperyod. p. 133 144 This was written some time in January 1905 as a proposed reply to Plekhanov’s article “On Our Tactics Towards the Struggle of the Liberal Bourgeoisie Against Tsarism”, which criticised Lenin’s pamphlet The Zemstvo Campaign and Iskra’s Plan. Lenin’s article did not appear in the press, and does not seem to have been written. p. 134 145 In his article “On Our Tactics Towards the Struggle of the Liberal Bourgeoisie Against Tsarism”, Plekhanov alleged there was a contradiction between Lenin’s old (What Is To Be Done>) and his new (The Zemstvo Campaign and Iskra’s Plan) attitude to the Zemstvo liberal movement. p. 135 146 A reference to the acts of the Chairman of the Zemstvo Assembly in Tambov Gubernia, who on December 14 and 15, 1904, requested police protection for his Assembly against the “public”. Plekhanov’s “On Our Tactics Towards the Struggle of the Liberal Bourgeoisie Against Tsarism” says: “By the way, about the panic. The recent Tambov events may perhaps put some NOTES 495

of the opponents of absolutism in mind of the idea that Moskovskiye Vedomosti was quite right in threatening the liberals with a popular uprising against constitutionalism” (G. V. Plekhanov, Works, Vol. XIII, p. 178). p. 135

147 The Majority Committees’ Bureau (M.C.B.)—the Bolsheviks’ organisational centre for preparing the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., set up on Lenin’s initiative at the end of 1904. In that period, the Party was in a profound crisis. The Mensheviks had seized the Party centres and were engaged in disorganising and splitting the Party organisations in the localities, and disrupting the unity of working-class action. Meanwhile, the revolutionary situation in the country demanded cohesion of the Party’s forces and militant unity of the proletariat. This dictated the need for an early convocation of the Third Party Congress, which was frustrated in every possible way by the central bodies, which were in the hands of the Mensheviks. Under Lenin’s leadership, the Bolsheviks launched a campaign for convening the Congress. A great part was played by the conference of 22 Bolsheviks called on Lenin’s initiative in Geneva in August 1904. It adopted an appeal “To the Party”, written by Lenin, which became a programme for Bolshevik struggle for the convocation of the Third Congress. Three regional conferences of Bolshevik committees— Southern, Caucasian and Northern—were held in Russia from September to December 1904. They set up the Majority Commit- tees’ Bureau, which included V. I. Lenin, R. S. Zemlyachka, S. I. Gusev, M. N. Lyadov and M. M. Litvinov. Guided by Lenin, the M.C.B. carried out the practical work in preparing the Third R.S.D.L.P. Congress. p. 136 148 The article was not written. p. 137 149 Narodnoye Pravo (People’s Right)—an illegal party of Russian democratic-minded intellectuals, founded in the summer of 1893 with the participation of former members of the Narodnaya Volya, 0. V. Aptekman, A. I. Bogdanovich, A. V. Gedeonovsky, M. A. Natanson, N. S. Tyutchev and others. Members of the Narodnoye Pravo Party set themselves the task of uniting all opposition forces to fight for political reform. The party put out two programme documents: “Manifesto” and “Vital Question”. In the spring of 1894 it was broken up by the tsarist government. Lenin gave an assessment of the Narodnoye Pravo Party as a political organisation in his What the “Friends of the People” Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats and The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats (see present edition, Vol. 1, pp. 129-332 and Vol. 2, pp. 323-51). Most of the members of the Narodnoye Pravo Party subsequently joined the Socialist-Revolutionaries. p. 137 150 This plan is close in content to Lenin’s article “A Militant Agree- ment for the Uprising” (see present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 158-66) and was apparently written after the article, because it raises the question of a combat committee, which the article does not. p. 138 496 NOTES

151 The Geneva Party Majority Club was formed at a conference of R.S.D.L.P. promotion groups abroad on January 13, 1905, and had four sections for elaborating questions of Party life: 1) organisation, 2) propaganda, 3) agitation, and 4) technical matters. A sitting of the organisation section on March 5, 1905, discussed a report by A. M. Essen (Stepanov) on how to organise work mainly among the non-proletarian sections of the population (students, soldiers and peasants). Lenin spoke thrice: first, after the report, then after a speech by Robert (unidentified), and again in connection with a speech by Olga (S. N. Ravich), who proposed that Lenin should be invited to take part in drawing up a “questionnaire” in view of his wide experience of practical work in Russia. When Lenin says: “I did draw up a questionnaire, but it was much too general”, he means his “Questionnaire” (see present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 200-01). p. 139 152 In a resolution carried by No. 14 of Vperyod on April 12 (March 30), 1905, the workers condemned the split in the Party and demanded immediate unity. p. 141 153 A reference to the resolutions of the Menshevik Kharkov Commit- tee, on the election of a delegate to the Third R.S.D.L.P. Con- gress, and of the Kharkov Bolshevik group, on the need to unite the Party “on the basis of a common, strictly principled tactics and centralised organisation”. Both were published in No. 14 of Vperyod. p. 141 154 A reference to the agreement between the M.C.B. and the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee on the convocation of the Third Party Congress. The principles of the agreement were set out in the appeal “To the Party” on behalf of the Central Committee and the M.C.B. on March 12 (25), 1905, which was published in No. 13 of Vperyod on April 5 (March 23), 1905, in Lenin’s article “The Second Step”. The agreement said that “further work in connection with convening the Congress is to be carried jointly by the M.C.B. and the C.C., which form an Organising Committee”. Lenin gave an assessment of the agreement in his articles “The Second Step” and “The Council Is Caught Out” (see present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 262-66, 330-34). p. 141 155 The Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. was held in London from April 12 to 27 (April 25 to May 10), 1905. It had been prepared by the Bolsheviks and was directed by Lenin. The Mensheviks refused to attend it and met for a conference at Geneva. The Congress was attended by 38 delegates: 24 with vote, and 14 with voice only. Delegates from twenty-one R.S.D.L.P. committees had votes. Lenin was a delegate from the Odessa Committee. Among the delegates were V. V. Vorovsky, R. S. Zemlyachka, N. K. Krupskaya, A. A. Bogdanov, A. V. Lunacharsky, M. M. Lit- vinov and M. G. Tskhakaya. Lenin was elected chairman of the Congress. The Congress examined the basic questions of the unfolding revolution in Russia and determined the tasks of the proletariat NOTES 497

and its party. Lenin wrote the draft resolutions on all the main questions debated by the Congress. He gave reports on Social- Democratic participation in a provisional revolutionary government and on the resolution concerning support for the peasant movement; he spoke on the armed uprising, the attitude to the government’s tactics on the eve of the revolution, the relations between the workers and intellectuals in Social-Democratic organisations, the Party Rules, the report on the Central Committee’s activity and other questions (see present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 359- 424). The Congress laid out the Party’s strategic plan for the bourgeois-democratic revolution and defined the Party’s tactical line. The Congress set out the organisation of an armed uprising as the Party’s most important and pressing task. The Congress said that the victory of the armed popular uprising should lead to the establishment of a provisional revolutionary government, whose task would be to suppress the resistance of the counter- revolution, carry out the R.S.D.L.P. minimum programme, and prepare the conditions for the transition to a socialist revolution. The Congress reviewed the Party Rules: it adopted Lenin’s formulation of Paragraph One, which deals with Party membership; eliminated the duocentric system (the C.C. and the C.O.) in the Party, and set up a single governing Party centre—the Central Committee; it gave a precise definition to the C.C.’s powers and its relations with the local committees. The Congress condemned the acts of the Mensheviks and their opportunism in organisational and tactical questions. In view of the fact that Iskra had fallen into Menshevik hands and was conducting an opportunist line, the Congress authorised the Central Committee to set up a new Central Organ, Proletary. A Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee on April 27 (May 10), 1905, appointed Lenin editor of the newspaper. The Third Congress was of tremendous historical importance. It was the first Bolshevik congress, which gave the Party and the working class a militant programme of struggle for the victory of the democratic revolution. For the work and importance of the Congress see Lenin’s article “The Third Congress” (present edition Vol. 8, pp. 442-49). The Congress decisions were substantiated in Lenin’s book Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution (see present edition, Vol. 9, pp. 15-140). p. 142

156 These resolutions, written by Lenin, were adopted at the last sitting of the Organising Committee for Convening the Third R.S.D.L.P. Congress on April 11 (24), 1905, and announced in the O.C. report at the first sitting of the Congress on April 12 (25), 1905, by L. B. Krasin, member of the O.C. from the Central Committee (see Trety syezd R.S.D.R.P., Protokoly, Moscow, 1959, pp. 30-31). p. 142 157 This is a draft of point five of the resolution adopted by the Organising Committee for Convening the Third R.S.D.L.P. Congress on April 11 (24), 1905 (see Trety syezd R.S.D.R.P., pp. 31- 32). The basic propositions of this document were also 498 NOTES

included in the resolution on the constitution of the Congress motioned by P. A. Krasikov (Belsky), M. S. Leshchinsky (Zharkov) and M. M. Litvinov (Kuznetsov) at the third sitting of the Congress on April 13 (26), and adopted at its fifth sitting on April 14 (27), 1905 (ibid., p. 96). p. 144 158 No Kazan Committee delegate attended the Congress until the eighteenth sitting, in view of the fact that the Organising Com- mittee had been unable to contact the Kazan Committee in good time. V. V. Adoratsky, a member of the Kazan Committee, was abroad at the time. To ensure the attendance of the Kazan organisation, Lenin wrote to the Credentials Committee, suggesting that Adoratsky should be invited to attend the Congress with voice but no vote as a member of the Kazan Committee. The Credentials Committee proposed that Adoratsky should be invited “simply as a member of the Party”, and it is this formula that Lenin found strange. The Congress, by a majority, with two against, decided to invite Adoratsky “as a member of the committee”. It proved to be impossible to inform Adoratsky of this decision, and he did not attend the Congress. Only by the eighteenth sitting did a delegate from the Kazan Committee arrive. He was I. A. Sammer (Savich), who was allowed voice but no vote. p. 145 159 N. A. Alexeyev (Andreyev) motioned this resolution: “The O.C. report shall be discussed in factual terms, and not in terms of principle or morality”. In the debate on this question, Andreyev adhered to the resolution motioned by Lenin (see p. 147), which was adopted by the Congress. p. 146 160 The draft agenda was discussed at the third, afternoon, sitting on April 13 (26), 1905. Variants of the draft agenda are published in the “Preparatory Material” section of Vol. 9 of the Fifth Russian edition of the Collected Works (pp. 375-78). This draft was circulated among the delegates for comments, and then with slight changes in the wording was read out at the Congress as the draft signed by Lenin, M. M. Litvinov (Kuznetsov) and A. A. Bogdanov (Maximov). p. 147 161 The proposal put forward by D. S. Postolovsky (Mikhailov) A. V. Lunacharsky (Voinov) and L. B. Krasin (Zimin) was that the Congress agenda should be drawn up under four heads: organisational questions, tactical questions, attitude to other parties and delegates’ reports. This proposal was adopted. In the subsequent discussion and amendment, the agenda was adopted with these main heads: 1) tactical questions; 2) organisational questions; 3) attitude to other parties; 4) work within the Party; 5) delegates’ reports; 6) elections. p. 148 162 The draft motioned by Ivanov (A. A. Bogdanov), which Lenin mentions, was the new draft Rules of the R.S.D.L.P. submitted to the Congress by the Majority Committees’ Bureau. It was published in No. 13 of Vperyod on April 5 (March 23), 1905, under the NOTES 499

title “Organisational Question”. The draft, with some amendments outlined at preliminary meetings of delegates, was read out by Bogdanov (Maximov) at the fifteenth, afternoon, sitting of the Congress on April 20 (May 3). Following a discussion and the introduction of a number of amendments, the Rules were adopted at the seventeenth, afternoon, sitting on April 21 (May 4). The remarks of N. F. (E. E. Essen) on Ivanov’s draft were published under the title “Concerning the Draft Party Rules” in the Supplement to No. 15 of Vperyod on April 20 (7), 1905. p. 149

163 Lenin erroneously calls V. V. Adoratsky, Arnatsky. p. 150

164 During the discussion of this question at the fourth sitting of the Congress on April 14 (27), 1905, Lenin said that he had not proposed an invitation for V. V. Filatov (NN), but had merely handed his written request to the Congress (see Trety syezd R.S.D.R.P., p. 80). The proposal to invite Filatov to the Congress with voice was rejected. p. 151 165 At the fourth sitting of the Congress (on the morning of April 14 [27]), Lenin spoke twice (for the second speech, see present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 365-67): After the report of the Credentials Committee, there was a debate on the granting of votes to the Bolshevik organisations which had existed and worked parallel to the Menshevik committees (the Kharkov and Yekaterinoslav groups and the Committee of the Organisation Abroad) and also to the Archangel Committee, which had not been confirmed. V. M. Obukhov (Kamsky) said that the granting of votes to the “C.O.A. and the parallel groups is a coup d’état in form and in substance”. Under a Congress decision, all these organisations were given voice but no vote. p. 151 166 Under the Party Rules adopted by the Second R.S.D.L.P. Con- gress, only organisations confirmed not less than one year before the Congress had the right of representation at the Congress. Under the Rules, the Kazan and Kuban committees were not regarded as fully empowered at the Third Congress, because they were not on the list of full-fledged committees in the minutes of the Party Council prior to September 1, 1904. At the fifth sitting of the Third Party Congress on April 14 (27), V. V. Vorovsky (Orlovsky) motioned a draft resolution written by Lenin on confirming these committees as full-fledged forthwith. The resolution was adopted at the same sitting. p. 151 167 At the fifth sitting of the Congress on April 14 (27), as it was confirming the Kazan and Kuban committees as being full-fledged forthwith, some delegates said that it was undesirable for delegates with voice only to take part in the voting, as this could have an effect on the results of this crucial decision. In this connection, Lenin wrote the draft resolution on the procedure governing the voting of questions at the Congress which was adopted at the same sitting. p. 151 500 NOTES

168 A reference to the speech by A. I. Rykov (Sergeyev) at the thirteenth sitting of the Congress against the draft resolution motioned by V. I. Lenin and P. P. Rumyantsev (Filippov). Rykov said that “the resolution does not apply to the agenda” and that its points “could be referred to the question of the liberals and agitation”; he proposed that they should be examined during the discussion of the corresponding items on the agenda. The Congress rejected Rykov’s proposal, and adopted the draft resolution. p. 155

169 When the thirteenth sitting of the Congress discussed the draft resolution on the attitude towards the government’s tactics on the eve of a revolution, there was a great debate on point “c” of the resolutive section, which read: “To organise the proletariat for the immediate introduction, in a revolutionary way, of an 8-hour working day and for the implementation of all the main demands of our minimum programme.” P. A. Krasikov (Belsky) objected to the words “revolutionary way”, and proposed their substitution by the words “actual gain”. As a result of the debate, the point was adopted in the following wording: “To organise the proletariat for the immediate implementation, in a revolutionary way, of an 8-hour working day and the impending demands of the working class” (see Trety syezd R.S.D.R.P., p. 222). p. 155 170 During the discussion at the fifteenth sitting on April 20 (May 3) of the report and draft resolution of A. A. Bogdanov (Maximov) on the relations between workers and intellectuals in Social- Democratic organisations, some delegates asserted that there was no such problem in the Party, and that there was no need to adopt any resolution on it. The Congress resolved to defer the matter until the adoption of the Party Rules. At the nineteenth sitting on April 22 (May 5), the Congress resumed its discussion of the question. A number of resolutions were motioned. Lenin’s draft (see present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 407-08), which he motioned jointly with A. A. Bogdanov, was adopted as a basis for the discussion. Lenin spoke several times (see ibid., pp. 411, 412). By a roll-call vote the Congress decided not to adopt any special resolution on the question. Lenin’s proposals were taken into account in the resolution on propaganda and agitation. p. 157 171 The speeches were not taken down in shorthand, and in accordance with the standing orders, every speaker had to submit a summary of his speech to the Congress Bureau within two hours of the sitting (see Trety syezd R.S.D.R.P., p. 11). p. 157 172 During the debate on the draft Party Rules, the Congress sub- stantially reworked the Party’s organisational principles, chiefly on three main questions: 1) amendment of §1 of the Rules; 2) precise definition of the powers of the Central Committee and an extension of the autonomy of local committees; 3) establishment of a single centre. The Congress adopted §1 as worded by Lenin. By a NOTES 501

majority, the Congress abandoned the dual centre arrangement, in the form of the C.C. and the C.O., which the Second Congress had set up. One centre—the Central Committee—was retained. The Third Congress devoted a great deal of attention to the demarcation of the powers of the Central Committee and those of the local committees, and to the relations between the committees and the periphery, which was granted more powers. By a majority, the Congress decided to expunge §8 from the draft Rules and adopt a special resolution on the question Lenin voted for retaining §8 in the Rules. The nineteenth sitting on April 22 (May 5) adopted a resolution motioned by V. V. Vorovsky (Orlov- sky) on the duty of the centres to inform the periphery about Party affairs and to reckon with their voice, the resolution which replaced §8 of the Rules (see Trety syezd R.S.D.R.P., pp. 325, 327-28). To prevent the committees from abusing their autonomy, and to make it possible to replace the committees which do not justify themselves, §9 of the new Rules said: “A local committee must be dissolved by the C.C. if two-thirds of the C.C. and two-thirds of the local workers, belonging to the Party organisations declare for such dissolution”. For two of Lenin’s speeches during the debate on the Party Rules on April 21 (May 4) see present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 413-15. p. 158 173 §6 of the draft Rules published in No. 13 of Vperyod on April 5 (March 23), 1905, said: “All organisations within the Party shall autonomously manage all matters relating specially and exclusively to that sphere of Party activity for the dealing with which they have been set up.” The Third Congress adopted §6 in a different wording (see Trety syezd R.S.D.R.P., p. 461). p. 158 174 Under §7 of the draft Party Rules, every Party organisation with the right of vote at the Congress had the right to publish Party literature at its own expense and on its own behalf. O. A. Kvitkin (Petrov) came out for §7 with the amendment of A. A. Bogdanov (Maximov) to the effect that “all periodical Party publications shall publish all the C.C. statements at its request”. P. A. Krasikov (Belsky) proposed that permission to publish Party literature should be given only when the practical slogans contained in it were in complete accord with the decisions of international Social-Democratic congresses and Party congresses. §7 of the Party Rules was adopted in the wording proposed by D. S. Postolovsky (Mikhailov) with the amendment by A. A. Bog- danov (see Trety syezd R.S.D.R.P., p. 461). P. A. Krasikov’s amendment was rejected. p. 159 175 During the debate on §11 of the draft Party Rules, which said that “Every Party organisation shall place before both the C.C. and the C.O. Editorial Board all the means for making a study of all its activity and all its members”, A. M. Essen (Kitayev) motioned the following addendum: “submitting detailed reports to the C.C. on its activity, at least twice a month”. After Lenin’s speech, this addendum was adopted. p. 159 502 NOTES

176 A reference to §12 of the draft Rules, which said that “Co-optation of members to the C.C. shall be unanimous”. The unanimity proposal was adopted. p. 159 177 §13 of the draft Rules said: “The Committee of Party Organisa- tions Abroad has the aim of conducting propaganda and agitation abroad and also of promoting the movement in Russia. It shall provide support to the movement in Russia only through persons and groups specially designated by the C.C.” The resolution of P. A. Krasikov (Belsky) said: “The Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. authorises the C.C. to examine and approve the Rules of the Organisation Abroad with the rights of a full-fledged Party committee conducting propaganda and agitation abroad, with the proviso that the Committee of Organisations Abroad shall give assistance and support to the movement in Russia only through persons and groups specially designated by the C.C.” The Congress deleted §13 from the Rules and adopted P. A. Kra- sikov’s resolution. p. 159 178 The draft resolution of A. A. Bogdanov (Maximov) on general meetings of the C.C. said: “The Congress makes it binding on the C.C. to have periodical meetings—at least once in three months— of both its parts”, i.e., of the C.C. sections in Russia and abroad. The resolution was adopted with an amendment stating that these meetings were to be held “at least once in four months” (Trety syezd R.S.D.R.P., p. 466). p. 159 179 At the eighteenth sitting of the Congress on April 22 (May 5), the question of the Kazan Committee’s representation came up once again with the arrival of its delegate I. A. Sammer (Savich). The Credentials Committee proposed that the Congress “should abide by its earlier decision and admit the Kazan Committee delegate with voice but no vote” (see Trety syezd R.S.D.R.P., p. 314). Sammer asked the Congress to allow his committee a vote. After a debate, the Congress rejected a resolution motioned by B. V. Avi- lov (Tigrov) on granting a vote to the Kazan Committee and confirmed the Credentials Committee’s resolution. p. 160 180 The draft resolution said: “Recognising the unification of Party work to be an urgent demand of Party life, recognising that such unification is best achieved in the process of work and in joint discussion of general Party slogans by as many Party workers as possible—the Third Party Congress recognises it as desirable that the C.C. should, for these purposes, organise conferences of representatives of local committees.” Lenin motioned amendments to the resolution and supported L. B. Krasin (Zimin) and D. S. Postolovsky (Mikhailov), who opposed the addenda motioned by G. L. Shklovsky (Dedushkin) and A. I. Rykov (Sergeyev) (see Trety syezd R.S.D.R.P., p. 342). Lenin’s amendments were adopted. p. 161 181 The draft resolution is in Lenin’s hand. It was motioned at the twentieth sitting by A. M. Essen (Kitayev) and R. S. Zemlyachka NOTES 503

(Osipov). It was adopted by the Congress as not subject to publication. p. 161 182 A draft resolution motioned by P. P. Rumyantsev (Filippov) said that there should be no agitation on the periphery and in the workers’ masses against whole Menshevik organisations or against individuals refusing to accept the Congress decisions, and that dissolution of Menshevik committees and establishment of Bolshevik committees where parallel organisations exist should be carried out in a most cautious manner, only when it was quite clear that a majority of the local committee members had refused to accept the decisions of the Third R.S.D.L.P. Congress. After a debate, the first part of the resolution was rejected, and the second adopted in the wording of Lenin and Bogdanov (Maximov) as not subject to publication (see Trety syezd R.S.D.R.P., p. 363). p. 162 183 The twenty-first sitting on April 23 (May 6) discussed a draft resolution on the attitude towards non-Russian Social-Democratic organisations motioned by V. V. Vorovsky (Orlovsky). It said: “...The Third R.S.D.L.P. Congress, reaffirming the attitude of the Second Congress on the question of federalism, authorises both the C.C. and the local committees to do their utmost to reach agreement with the national Social-Democratic organisations for the purpose of co-ordinating local work, thereby paving the way for a possible unification of all Social-Democratic parties into a single R.S.D.L.P.” (Trety syezd R.S.D.R.P., p. 365). D. S. Postolovsky (Mikhailov) proposed the following text: “authorises the C.C., as well as the local organisations, to make joint efforts” (ibid.). He argued that agreement could be reached only “when it was arranged not only by the C.C. but by the local committees as well” (ibid., p. 371). This amendment was opposed by Lenin and rejected by the Congress. p. 162 184 In addition to what A. V. Lunacharsky (Voinov) said, Lenin quoted a Moscow report which appeared in The Times No. 37700 on May 6, 1905, under the title “Zemstvo Congress at Moscow. Purposes and Prospects”. On the Zemstvo congress in Moscow see Lenin’s article “The Advice of the Conservative Bourgeoisie” (present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 457-60). The Times—a daily founded in London in 1785; one of the leading conservative papers of the British bourgeoisie. p. 163 185 The twenty-third sitting heard and discussed the C.C. report given by L. B. Krasin (Zimin). Some speakers noted that the report failed to describe the political activity of the Central Committee and demanded that the C.C. representative tell the Congress why the C.C. had not succeeded in guiding the Party as its political leader. Those were the statements Lenin had in mind when he spoke of the “trial” in his second speech on the C.C. report. p. 163 186 The resolution was adopted unanimously. p. 164 504 NOTES

187 The draft resolution on propaganda and agitation was discussed and adopted at the twenty-second sitting on April 25 (May 8). Lenin’s amendments and addenda were adopted and written into the resolution (see Trety syezd R.S.D.R.P., p. 457). The amendment to point “a” was written by Lenin and tabled by A. A. Aristarkhov (Osetrov) and V. M. Obukhov (Kamsky). p. 165

188 Point “c” of the draft resolution read as follows: “take measures to organise in all the main areas of Russia travelling agitation groups under the direction of responsible district agitators, to assist the local centres”. Lenin’s amendment replaced this text. p. 165

189 O. A. Kvitkin (Petrov) proposed the words “armed force” at the end of the draft resolution on the events in the Caucasus to be replaced by the words “all the means at their disposal” (Trety syezd R.S.D.R.P., p. 442). Kvitkin’s amendment was adopted. p. 166

190 Lenin gave the lecture on the subject in Geneva on May 19 or 20 (June 1 or 2), and soon after that in Paris. In a letter to L. A. Fo- tieva, who was in Paris, Lenin wrote on June 1 or 2 that he intended to go to Paris and asked her to organise his report on “The Third Congress and its Decisions”. The content of the report was, Lenin wrote, “a parallel analysis of our decisions and those of the Mensheviks. They have just issued an announcement about their conference, and I will analyse it” (see present edition, Vol. 36, p. 148). By announcement he meant the Menshevik pamphlet First All-Russia Conference of Party Workers, issued as a supplement to No. 100 of Iskra on May 15, 1905. In his plan Lenin refers to pages in this pamphlet. Lenin elaborated on some points of his plan in the article “A Third Step Back”, which was published later (see present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 544-54). p. 166

191 See present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 461-81. p. 168

192 See “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League” (Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. I, Moscow, 1962, pp. 106-17). p. 168

193 This sets out the milestones in the struggle between the revolutionary and the opportunist trends in Russian Social-Democracy. There is no article written to this plan. Lenin characterised the stages of the internal Party struggle prior to the Third R.S.D.L.P. Congress in his “A Brief Outline of the Split in the R.S.D.L.P. A Letter to Greulich”, which he wrote in February 1905 (see present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 125-31). Roughly the same stages as in the present article are given in his plan written in August 1905 and entitled “Plekhanov and the new Iskra” (see Lenin Miscellany V, 1926, pp. 360-66). p. 168 NOTES 505

194 A reference to the resolutions of the “Unity” Congress of R.S.D.L.P. Organisations Abroad, held in September 1901. It was attended by six members of the Iskra and Zarya organisation abroad (among them V. I. Lenin, N. K. Krupskaya and L. Martov), eight members of the Sotsial-Demokrat organisation (including three members of the Emancipation of Labour group: G. V. Plekhanov, P. B. Axel- rod and V. I. Zasulich), 16 members of the Union of Russian Social- Democrats (including five members of the Bund Committee Abroad) and three members of the Borba group. At the Congress Lenin who attended under the name of Frey, spoke about the Union’s opportunist actions. When the Union tabled its opportunist amendments and addenda to a resolution condemning opportunism and recognising the need for the unity of all Social-Democratic forces in Russia on the basis of Iskra’s revolutionary principles the revolutionary section of the Congress (members of the Iskra and Zarya and the Sotsial-Demokrat organisations) issued a statement on the impossibility of unification and left the Congress. On Lenin’s initiative, these organisations in October 1901 united into the League of Russian Revolutionary Social-Democracy Abroad. p. 168

195 A reference to the grouping of votes at the Second R.S.D.L.P. Congress, which was held from July 17 (30) to August 10 (23) 1903. The Congress was attended by 43 delegates with 51 votes. Of them 24 votes belonged to the Iskra majority, 9 to the Iskra minority, 10 to the “Marsh”, and 8 to the anti-Iskra group (3 Rabo- cheye Dyelo members and 5 Bundists). For details of the struggle at the Congress see present edition, Vol. 7, pp. 332-47. p. 168

196 The Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. ended on August 10 (23), 1903, and on August 15 (28) Iskra’s No. 46, in the editing of which Lenin and Plekhanov took part, was issued. The exact meaning of Lenin’s reference to August 13 (26) has not been established. On November 13 (26) Plekhanov co-opted the Mensheviks Axelrod, Martov, Zasulich and Potresov to the Iskra Editorial Board. p. 168

197 A reference to Martov’s words at the Second Congress of the League of Russian Revolutionary Social-Democracy Abroad, which took place from October 13 (26) to 18 (31), 1903, to the effect that he Martov, would refuse to work with Martynov on the same Editorial Board. p. 168

198 A possible reference to the letter sent on September 25-26 (October 8-9), 1903, by Iskra’s former editors to Lenin and Plekhanov, in which they refused to collaborate on Iskra (see present edition, Vol. 7, p. 353). p. 168

199 A reference to the conference of 22 Bolsheviks and the Declara- tion of 19 Bolsheviks. The conference was held in the first half of August 1904. 506 NOTES

Declaration of the Twenty-Two—an appeal “To the Party” written by Lenin and adopted at the Bolshevik conference in Geneva, in the first half of August 1904 (see present edition, Vol. 7, pp. 452-59). The conference was attended by 19 persons, among them V. I. Lenin, N. K. Krupskaya, M. S. Olminsky, M. N. Lyadov and P. N. Lepeshinsky. Three other Bolsheviks soon adhered to their decisions and the appeal “To the Party” was issued on behalf of the 22. This was published in a special leaflet in August 1904 and became the Bolshevik programme in the struggle for convening the Third Party Congress. The Declaration of the nineteen was issued by the Moscow Com- mittee of the R.S.D.L.P. in October 1904 under the title “Appeal to Members of the R.S.D.L.P.” (see Sbornik dokumentov i materia- lov “Trety syezd R.S.D.R.P.” [Collection of Documents and Material “Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.”], Moscow, 1955, pp. 99-106). p. 169

200 These dates denote the period from the conference of 22 Bol- sheviks (first half of August 1904) to the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., which was held from April 12 (25) to April 27 (May 10), 1905. p. 169

201 A reference to the mutiny on the battleship Potemkin, which broke out on June 14 (27), 1905. The ship entered Odessa, just then in the grip of a general strike, but no use was made of the favourable conditions for joint action by the workers and sailors. The Bol- shevik organisation in Odessa had been weakened by arrests, and was not united. The Mensheviks were opposed to an armed uprising and tried to restrain the workers and sailors from offensive operations. The tsarist government sent the whole of its Black Sea Fleet to crush the Potemkin mutiny, but the sailors refused to fire at the insurgent ship, and their commanders were forced to withdraw the fleet. After sailing the seas for eleven days, the Potemkin, short of food and coal, made for Rumania and there surrendered to the Rumanian authorities. Most of its sailors remained abroad. Those of them who returned were arrested and committed for trial. The Potemkin mutiny failed but the fact that the crew of a major warship had gone over to the revolution was an important advance in the struggle against the autocracy. Lenin said the uprising was an “attempt to form the nucleus of a revolutionary army” (see present edition, Vol. 8, p. 562). p. 169 202 It has not been established whether Lenin did write and publish the leaflet (proclamation). p. 171 203 Moskovskiye Vedomosti (Moscow Recorder)—one of the oldest Russian newspapers published by Moscow University from 1756 (initially as a small bulletin). From 1863 to 1887, the ultra-reactionary and chauvinist M. N. Katkov was its publisher and editor, turning it into a monarchist and nationalist mouthpiece for the most reactionary sections of the landowners and the clergy; from NOTES 507

1905, the paper was one of the main organs of the Black Hundreds. It was published until the October Socialist Revolution. p. 173 204 Vestnik Yevropy (European Messenger)—a historical, political and literary monthly of a liberal bourgeois trend published in St. Petersburg from 1866 to 1918. It carried articles against the revolutionary Marxists. p. 173 205 Rus (Russia)—a liberal bourgeois daily published in St. Peters- burg from December 1903. Its publisher and editor was A. A. Suvo- rin. During the 1905 revolution, the paper was close to the Cadets, but took a more moderate stand. It was closed down on Decem- ber 2 (15), 1905, and subsequently appeared at intervals under various names: Rus, Molva (Tidings), XX vek (Twentieth Century), Oko (Eye) and Novaya Rus (New Russia). p. 173 206 Proletary (Proletarian)—an illegal Bolshevik weekly, the Central Organ of the R.S.D.L.P., set up under a resolution of the Third Party Congress. Lenin was appointed its editor-in-chief by a decision of the Central Committee’s Plenary Meeting on April 27 (May 10), 1905. It was published in Geneva from May 14 (27) to Novem- ber 12 (25), 1905. There were 26 issues. The paper continued the line of the old, Leninist Iskra and retained full continuity with the Bolshevik newspaper Vperyod. Lenin wrote about 90 articles and notes for the newspaper. Among those who constantly took part in the work of its Editorial Board were V. V. Vorovsky, A. V. Lunacharsky and M. S. Olminsky. N. K. Krupskaya, V. M. Velichkina and V. A. Karpinsky did a great deal of work for the Editorial Board. The paper was closely allied with the working-class movement in Russia and carried articles and notes from workers taking a direct part in the revolutionary movement. Local reports were collected and sent on to Gene- va by V. D. Bonch-Bruyevich, S. I. Gusev and A. I. Ulyanova- Yelizarova. N. K. Krupskaya and L. A. Fotieva carried on the correspondence with local Party organisations and readers. Proletary instantly responded to all the important events in the Russian and international labour movement and waged a relentless struggle against the Mensheviks and other opportunist and revisionist elements. The paper carried out a great deal of work for the propaganda of the Third Party Congress decisions and played an important part in the Bolsheviks’ organisational and ideological unity. Soon after Lenin’s departure for Russia in early November 1905 the paper ceased publication. The last two issues (Nos. 25 and 26) were edited by V. V. Vorovsky, but they also contained several articles by Lenin, which were published after his departure from Geneva. p. 173 207 For the criticism on this question of the Menshevik Iskra and the Bund, see Lenin’s article “The Theory of Spontaneous Gener- ation” (present edition, Vol. 9, pp. 246-51). p. 173 208 The article was not written. p. 174 508 NOTES

209 The Cadets—members of the Constitutional-Democratic Party, the leading party of the liberal-monarchist bourgeoisie in Russia. It was set up in October 1905 and consisted of members of the bourgeoisie, Zemstvo leaders from among the landowners, and bourgeois intellectuals. Among its prominent leaders were P. N. Mi- lyukov, S. A. Muromtsev, V. A. Maklakov, A. I. Shingaryov, P. B. Struve and F. I. Rodichev. To deceive the working people, the Cadets called themselves “the party of people’s freedom”, but actually went no further in their demands than a constitutional monarchy. After the October Socialist Revolution the Cadets operated as bitter enemies of the Soviet power and took part in all the armed counter-revolutionary action and campaigns of the interventionists. After the defeat of the interventionists and the whiteguards, the Cadets emigrated and continued their anti- Soviet counter-revolutionary activity. p. 174

210 Nasha Zhizn (Our Life)—A liberal daily published in St. Peter- sburg, with interruptions, from November 6 (19), 1904, to July 11 (24), 1906. p. 174

211 Birzheviye Vedomosti (Stock-Exchange Recorder)—a bourgeois newspaper founded in 1880. It was published in St. Petersburg, first thrice a week, then four times a week, and then daily. From November 1902 it had two editions: morning and afternoon. Its name became a byword for adaptation, corruption and lack of principle. It was closed down by the Revolutionary Military Committee at the end of October 1917. p. 174

212 A reference to Karl Marx’s statements about Ledru-Rollin in his work The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850 (see Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. I, Moscow, 1962, pp. 118-242). p. 174

213 This is a critique of the tactical line followed by the bourgeois liberals who, in the magazine Osvobozhdeniye (Emancipation) and other periodicals, sharply opposed the idea of an armed uprising, rejected the idea of boycotting the Bulygin Duma and called for participation in it. Lenin criticised Kautsky’s stand on the provisional revolutionary government (point 3 of the “Note”) in his article “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution” (see present edition, Vol. 9, pp. 108-09). The question of making use of “elderly” workers (point 5 of the “Note” was elaborated in Lenin’s letter to S. I. Gusev of September 30 (October 13), 1905 (see present edition, Vol. 34, pp. 358-59). Lenin elaborated the question of the Social-Democratic attitude to parliament (point 6 of the “Note”) in his letter to A. V. Luna- charsky of September 28 (October 11), 1905 (see present edition, Vol. 34, pp. 352-53). p. 175 NOTES 509

214 A quotation from N. A. Nekrasov’s poem Who Can Be Happy and Free in Russia; the whole stanza says: Mother Rus! You are wretched, You are rich, You are powerful, You are powerless! p. 175 215 The Economist—a British economic and political weekly published in London since 1843; an organ of the big industrial bourgeoisie. p. 176 216 No. 25 of Proletary on November 16 (3), 1905, carried V. A. Kar- pinsky’s article “The Peasant Congress”, signed V. Kalinin. Lenin edited the article and made two insertions. p. 177 217 General redistribution—a slogan expressing the peasants’ striving for a general redistribution of the land and the elimination of landed estates. In his article “The Agrarian Programme of Russian Social- Democracy”, Lenin said that the demand for a general redistribution, together with the reactionary utopian idea of perpetuat- ing small-scale peasant production, also had its revolutionary side, namely, “the desire to sweep away by means of a peasant revolt all the remnants of the serf-owning system” (present edition, Vol. 6, p. 137). Later, at the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., Lenin said: “We are told that the peasants will not be satisfied with our programme and will go further. But we are not afraid of that; we have our socialist programme for that eventuality, and consequently are not afraid even of a redistribution of the land” (present edition, Vol. 6, p. 495). p. 177

218 The St. Petersburg City Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. was called by the St. Petersburg Committee on February 11 (24), 1906, to decide on the attitude to the Duma. The conference was guided by Lenin and was attended by 65 delegates with vote. Elections to the conference were held after discussion and voting on the tactical platforms of the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, with one delegate from thirty voting Party members. The Bolsheviks won a substantial majority. The Mensheviks demanded the inval- idation of the votes of the district R.S.D.L.P. organisation, which was almost entirely Bolshevik. Lenin made speeches and remarks during the debate on the question of the district R.S.D.L.P. organisation (see present edition, Vol. 12, pp. 123-25). The conference confirmed the representation of the district organisation. It heard a report from the St. Petersburg Committee and adopted Lenin’s resolution recognising the representation at the conference valid, the conference effective and its decisions binding. Lenin gave the report on the attitude to the Duma (there is no record of it in the minutes). At the end of his report Lenin read out a resolution on the tactics of active boycott. The Menshevik 510 NOTES

resolution was read out by Martov. By 36 votes to 29, the conference came out in favour of the active boycott, but had no time to adopt a resolution giving detailed motivation of the tactic. To discuss this and give it final approval, a second city conference of the St. Petersburg organisation was called at the end of February and the beginning of March. It was attended by 62 delegates and discussed draft resolutions tabled by Lenin, Martov and an additional one by the Mensheviks of Okhta District. After a long and bitter struggle, the conference adopted Lenin’s resolution by 35 to 24 with one abstention. It set up a committee, which included Lenin, to give the final wording to the resolution. The Mensheviks refused to take part in the committee and walked out. p. 178 219 A reference to the proposal of I. A. Konovalov (Nikolai) at the St. Petersburg City Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. on February 11 (24), 1906, to close the debate on the district and Vyborg organisations; to recognise the vote as correct and the representation as valid, and proceed with the agenda of the conference. p. 179 220 The Fourth (Unity) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. was held at Stock- holm from April 10 to 25 (April 23 to May 8), 1906. It was attended by 112 delegates with vote, representing 57 local organisations of the R.S.D.L.P., and 22 delegates with voice only. National organisations were also represented: the Social- Democracy of Poland and Lithuania, the Bund, the Latvian Social-Democratic Labour Party, the Ukrainian Social- Democratic Labour Party and the Finnish Labour Party. There was also a representative of the Bulgarian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Among the Bolshevik delegates were V. I. Lenin, M. V. Frunze, M. I. Kalinin, N. K. Krupskaya, A. V. Lunacharsky, F. A. Ser- geyev (Artyom), S. G. Shahumyan, I. I. Skvortsov-Stepanov, J. V. Stalin, V. V. Vorovsky, K. Y. Voroshilov and Y. M. Yaro- slavsky. The Mensheviks had a majority at the Congress because many Bolshevik Party organisations, which had led the armed action by the masses, were broken up and could not send their delegates. The Central Area, the Urals, Siberia and the North—Bolshe- vik bulwarks—were represented by a small number of delegates. By contrast, the Mensheviks, who had the more numerous organisations in the country’s non-industrial areas, where there had been no mass revolutionary action, were in a position to send more delegates. There was a bitter struggle between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks on every point of the Congress agenda. Lenin gave reports on the agrarian question, the assessment of the current situation and the class tasks of the proletariat, on the attitude to the Duma, the armed uprising and other questions, and took part in the committee drafting the Party Rules (see present edition, Vol. 10, pp. 277-309). The character of the decisions was determined by the numerical superiority of the Mensheviks. After NOTES 511

a stubborn struggle, the Congress approved the Menshevik resolutions on the Duma and the armed uprising, and adopted their agrarian programme. On the attitude to bourgeois parties, the Congress confined itself to endorsing the resolution of the International Congress at Amsterdam. Without debate, it adopted the compromise resolution on the trade unions and the resolution on the attitude to the peasant movement. At the same time, on the demand of the Party masses, the Con- gress adopted Paragraph One of the Rules in Lenin’s wording, rejecting Martov’s opportunist formula. The Bolshevik proposition on democratic centralism was included in the Rules for the first time. The Congress decided on the question of uniting with the Social- Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania and the Latvian Social-Democratic Labour Party, which joined the R.S.D.L.P. as territorial organisations working among proletarians of all nationalities in their territories. The Central Committee elected by the Congress included three Bolsheviks and seven Mensheviks. The Editorial Board of Sotsial- Demokrat, the Central Organ, consisted of Mensheviks only. The Congress is known as the “Unity” Congress, but it marked only the formal unification of the R.S.D.L.P. Actually, the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks had their own views, their own platforms on the key revolutionary questions, and in fact remained two distinct parties. Lenin analysed the work of the Congress in his pamphlet Report on the Unity Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (A Letter to the St. Petersburg Workers) (see present edition, Vol. 10, pp. 317- 82). p. 179

221 At the second sitting of the Fourth (Unity) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., there was a discussion of the Congress standing orders under a draft put forward by the United Central Committee. A debate ensued on the question of the roll-call vote on the written statements submitted to the Congress Bureau. Two proposals were motioned: one by the Bolshevik P. P. Rumyantsev (Schmidt) and the other by the Menshevik M. A. Lurye (Larin). The former’s was adopted. See Chetvyorty (Obyedinitelny) syezd R.S.D.R.P. Aprel (aprel-mai) 1906 goda. Protokoly (Proceedings of the Fourth [Unity] Congress. April [April-May] 1906), Moscow, 1959, pp. 11- 16. p. 179

222 During the debate on the agenda at the third sitting of the Fourth (Unity) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., the Menshevik F. I. Dan objected to the question of the current situation being put on the agenda. p. 180

223 A reference to point two of the draft resolution of the Bolsheviks, “The Class Tasks of the Proletariat at the Present Moment of the Democratic Revolution”, for the Fourth (Unity) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. p. 181 512 NOTES

224 The twenty-fourth sitting of the Fourth (Unity) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. decided on the question of uniting the Social-Democ- racy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania with the R.S.D.L.P. p. 181 225 Rech (Speech)—a daily, the Central Organ of the Cadet Party, published in St. Petersburg from February 23 (March 8), 1906, under the editorship of P. N. Milyukov and I. V. Hessen, and with close collaboration from M. M. Vinaver, P. D. Dolgorukov, P. B. Struve and others. The newspaper was closed down by the Revolutionary Military Committee of the Petrograd Soviet on October 26 (November 8), 1917, but continued to appear until August 1918 under the names of Nasha Rech (Our Speech), Svobod- naya Rech (Free Speech), Vek (Age), Novaya Rech (New Speech), Nash Vek (This Age). p. 181 226 First Duma (the so-called Witte Duma) was convened on April 27 (May 10), 1906, under an ordinance worked out by Chairman of the Council of Ministers S. Y. Witte. Elected to the Duma were 478 deputies, over one-third of whom belonged to the Cadet Party. It was dissolved on July 8 (21), 1906. Trudoviks—a group of petty-bourgeois democrats in Russian Dumas consisting of peasants and Narodnik-minded intellectuals. The Trudovik group was formed in April 1906 from the peasant deputies of the First Duma. In the Duma the Trudoviks vacillated between the Cadets and the Social-Democrats, which was due to the class character of the peasant petty proprietors. In view of the fact that the Trudoviks represented the peasant masses, the Bolsheviks in the Duma pursued the tactic of reaching agreement with them on various questions for conducting a common struggle against the tsarist autocracy and the Cadets. In 1917, the Trudovik group merged with the Popular Socialist Party and gave active support to the bourgeois Provisional Government. After the October Revolution the Tru- doviks sided with the bourgeois counter-revolution. p. 182

227 Novoye Vremya (New Times)—a daily published in St. Petersburg from 1868 to 1917 by various publishers, repeatedly changing its political orientation. Moderately liberal at first, it became an organ of reactionary landowner and official bureaucratic circles in 1876, when A. S. Suvorin took over as publisher. From 1905— an organ of the Black Hundreds. After the bourgeois-democratic revolution in February 1917, the paper gave total support to the counter-revolutionary policy of the bourgeois Provisional Govern- ment and fiercely attacked the Bolsheviks. It was closed down by the Revolutionary Military Committee of the Petrograd Soviet on October 26 (November 8), 1917. p. 184

228 Mysl (Thought)—a political and literary daily, the legal organ of the S.R. Party, published in St. Petersburg from June 20 (July 3) to July 6 (19), 1906, in place of Golos (Voice), which had been closed down. Fifteen issues were published. p. 185 NOTES 513

229 The Second (First All-Russia) Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. was held at Tammerfors from November 3 to 7 (16-20), 1906. It was attended by 32 delegates with vote: 11 from the Mensheviks, 7 from the Bund, 6 from the Bolsheviks, 5 from the Social-Democra- cy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania, and 3 from the Social-Democracy of the Latvian Territory. Members of the Central Committee and the Central Organ Editorial Board attended with voice only. The Conference adopted the following agenda: 1. Electoral campaign. 2. Party Congress. 3. Labour Congress. 4. Struggle against the Black Hundreds and the pogroms. 5. Partisan activity. The Menshevik C.C. secured a majority for the Mensheviks by bringing in a number of fictitious organisations, which enabled them to impose Menshevik resolutions on some questions. By 18 votes (Mensheviks and Bundists) to 14, the Conference adopted the Menshevik resolution “On the R.S.D.L.P.’s Tactics in the Electoral Campaign”, which allowed blocs with the Cadets. To counter this opportunist resolution, Lenin motioned, on behalf of 14 delegates, a “Minority Opinion”, the Bolshevik platform for the electoral campaign, which emphasised the need for the working-class Party to be organisationally and ideologically independent. It allowed for the possibility of temporary agreements only with the Trudoviks and the S.R.s as representing petty-bourgeois democracy (pp. 188-91) . Lenin criticised the Menshevik draft electoral platform, which the C.C. submitted for approval by the Con- ference, and motioned a number of amendments. Under Bolshevik pressure, the Conference adopted a resolution introducing the amendments. The Conference adopted a resolution “On Unity in the Electoral Campaign in the Localities” with Lenin’s amendment, which put a curb on the Menshevik C.C. in practising the tactics of setting up bloc with the Cadets in the localities (see present edition, Vol. 11, pp. 322-23). Lenin insisted on the need for an emergency Party congress. The Conference decided to call the next congress not later than March 15 (28), 1907. Although the Bolsheviks demanded a discussion of the question of a “labour congress”, believing agitation for it to be a violation of Party discipline, the Conference did not discuss the question, confining itself to a compromise resolution, “On the Limits of the Agitation for a Labour Congress”. There was no time to discuss the questions of fighting the Black Hundreds and the pogroms, or the partisan activity. The Confer- ence authorised the C.C. to issue a brief report on the Conference, containing all the draft resolutions and minority opinions. But the Menshevik C.C., in its organ, Sotsial-Demokrat, published only the Conference resolutions, without the Bolsheviks’ “Minority Opinions”. Lenin analysed and criticised the work of the Conference in his “Blocs with the Cadets” and “Party Discipline and the Fight Against the Pro-Cadet Social-Democrats” (see present edition, Vol. 11, pp. 307-19 and 320-23). p. 186 514 NOTES

230 Lenin’s report was based on the Bolshevik resolution, later presented at the Conference as a “Minority Opinion” on behalf of the delegates of the Social-Democracy of Poland, the Latvian Territory, St. Petersburg, Moscow, the Central Industrial Region and the Volga area (pp. 188-91). The Social-Democracy of the Latvian Territory—until 1906, the Latvian Social-Democratic Labour Party—was set up in June 1904 at the party’s First Congress. At the Second L.S.D.L.P. Congress in June 1905, the party adopted its programme. From 1905 to 1907, the L.S.D.L.P. guided the revolutionary action by the workers. Lenin said that “during the revolution the Lettish proletariat and the Lettish Social-Democratic Party occupied one of the first and most important places in the struggle against the autocracy and all the forces of the old order” (see present edition, Vol. 16, p. 260). At the Fourth (Unity) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. in 1906, the L.S.D.L.P. entered the R.S.D.L.P. as a territorial organisation, and after the Congress was called the Social-Democracy of the Latvian Territory. p. 186 231 A reference to the Bolshevik draft declaration by the Duma Social-Democratic group, which was written by Lenin. Slightly abridged, it is quoted by Lenin in his article “The Declaration of Our Group in the Duma” (see present edition, Vol. 11, pp. 32-37). p. 187 232 A reference to the resolution “On Tactics” adopted by the Bund’s Seventh Congress, which was held at the end of August and beginning of September 1906. p. 189 233 The Second Duma met on February 20 (March 5) 1907. The elections to the Duma were indirect and unequal, and were held in an atmosphere of reprisals and trials by military tribunals. Still, the Second Duma turned out to be more Leftist than the First, the reason being the more distinct demarcation between the parties than in the First Duma period, the growing class consciousness of the masses and the participation of the Bolsheviks in the elections. The Bolsheviks used the Duma as a rostrum for exposing tsarism and the treacherous role of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie, for proclaiming and propagandising the Party’s revolutionary programme, for releasing the peasantry from the influence of the liberals and creating a revolutionary bloc in the Duma of representatives of the working class and the peasantry. This was an entirely new, revolutionary Marxist line of behaviour for proletarian delegates to take in a parliamentary institution. Mean- while, the Mensheviks pursued the opportunist line of supporting the Cadets. By mid-1907, when it became obvious that the workers and peasants lacked the strength to defeat tsarism, the tsarist government decided to disperse the Duma. On the night of June 2 (15), 1907, the Social-Democratic group in the Duma was arrested, and the Duma itself dissolved by the tsar’s decree the following day. p. 189 NOTES 515

234 Zionist socialists—members of the Zionist Socialist Labour Party, a petty-bourgeois Jewish nationalist organisation formed in 1904. They believed the main task of the Jewish proletariat to be a struggle for obtaining their own territory and establishing a national state. They preached class co-operation with the Jewish bourgeoisie, strove to isolate Jewish workers from the revolutionary movement of the Russian and international proletariat, and tried to sow hostile feelings among the workers of different nationalities. The nationalistic activity of the Zionist socialists served to obscure the class consciousness of the Jewish workers and did great harm to the working-class movement. After the February 1917 bourgeois-democratic revolution, the Zionist Socialist Labour Party merged with the Socialist Jewish Labour Party (S.J.L.P.) to form the United Jewish Socialist Labour Party. p. 191

235 Popular Socialists (P.S.)—members of the petty-bourgeois Tru- dovik Popular Socialist Party which in 1906 split away from the Right wing of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party (S.R.s). The Popular Socialists favoured a bloc with the Cadets. Lenin used to call them “Social-Cadets”, “philistine opportunists”, “S.R. Men- sheviks”, vacillating between the Cadets and the S.R.s, and emphasised that the party “differs very little from the Cadets, for it deletes from its programme both republicanism and the demand for all the land” (see present edition, Vol. 11, p. 228). It was headed by A. V. Peshekhonov, N. F. Annensky, V. A. Myakotin and others. p. 191

236 A reference to Lenin’s article “The Crisis of Menshevism” published in No. 9 of Proletary on December 7 (20), 1906 (see present edition, Vol. 11, pp. 341-64). Proletary (Proletarian)—an illegal Bolshevik newspaper published from August 21 (September 3), 1906, to November 28 (December 11), 1909, under the editorship of Lenin. Fifty issues appeared. Among those who took an active part in the editorial work were M. F. Vladimirsky, V. V. Vorovsky, A. V. Lunacharsky and I. F. Dubrovinsky; technical matters were handled by A. G. Shlikhter and Y. S. Shlikhter, among others. The first twenty issues were prepared for the press and set in Vyborg. In view of the sharp worsening of conditions for the publication of an illegal organ in Russia, the Proletary Editorial Board transferred the paper’s publication abroad, in accordance with a decision of the St. Petersburg and Moscow committees of the R.S.D.L.P. (Nos. 21-40 were published in Geneva, and Nos. 41-50, in Paris). Proletary was in fact the Central Organ of the Bolsheviks. Lenin carried out all the main work on its Board. More than 100 articles and notes by Lenin on the most important questions of the working-class revolutionary struggle were published in the paper, which had close contact with local Party organisations. During the years of the Stolypin reaction, Proletary played an outstanding role in preserving and strengthening the Bolshevik 516 NOTES

organisations and in fighting the liquidators, the otzovists- ultimatumists and the god-builders. The paper ceased publication in accordance with the decisions of the January 1910 Plenary Meeting of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee. p. 191

237 A reference to the C.C. appeal “To All Party Organisations and All Social-Democratic Workers” on the convocation of the Fourth R.S.D.L.P. Congress. It was adopted on Lenin’s proposal and published in No. 9 of the newspaper Novaya Zhizn on November 10 (23), 1905 (see K.P.S.S. v rezolutsiyakh i resheniyakh.... Part I, 1954, pp. 96-98). Novaya Zhizn (New Life)—the first legal Bolshevik newspaper published daily in St. Petersburg from October 27 (November 9) to December 3 (16), 1905. Its official publisher and editor was the poet N. M. Minsky, and the publisher, M. F. Andreyeva. When Lenin returned to St. Petersburg from abroad in early November, the paper was edited by him. There was a change in the Editorial Board and contributors. Novaya Zhizn was in fact the Central Organ of the R.S.D.L.P. Among those who were most closely connected with the newspaper were M. S. Olminsky, V. V. Vorovsky, A. V. Lunacharsky and V. D. Bonch-Bruyevich. Maxim Gorky took an active part in the paper and also gave it large financial assistance. Among its foreign contributors were Rosa Luxemburg Karl Liebknecht, Marcel Cachin and Paul Lafargue. Fourteen of Lenin’s articles appeared in the paper. In these articles, he defined the Party’s tasks and tactics in the first Russian revolution. Novaya Zhizn was a champion of all the decisions and measures of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee and played a great part in the political enlightenment and organisation of the masses mobilising them for the armed uprising. In October 1905, Lenin wrote about Novaya Zhizn: “Today the broadest tribuna for our influence on the proletariat is a daily newspaper in St. Petersburg” (see present edition, Vol. 34, p. 365). Novaya Zhizn was subjected to numerous reprisals. It was closed down by the tsarist government after its No. 27 on December 2. The last issue, No. 28, was published illegally. p. 192

238 A reference to the First Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. held at Tammerfors (Finland) from December 12 to 17 (25-30), 1905. It was attended by representatives of 26 organisations. Lenin was elected chairman of the Conference. Among the participants were V. Y. Fridolin, L. M. Knipovich, L. B. Krasin, N. K. Krup- skaya, P. F. Kudelli, S. A. Lozovsky, P. N. Mostovenko, V. I. Nevsky, V. A. Radus-Zenkovich, J. V. Stalin and Y. M. Ya- roslavsky The Mensheviks were represented by E. L. Gurevich (V. Danevich). The Conference had the following agenda: 1) Reports from the localities. 2) Report on the current situation. 3) Organisational report of the C.C. 4) On the merger of both parts of the R.S.D.L.P. 5) On Reorganising the Party. 6) The agrarian question. 7) On the Duma. NOTES 517

Lenin gave reports on the current situation and the agrarian question. The Conference came out for restoring Party unity and merging the practical centres of the Bolsheviks and the Menshe- viks and their Central Organs on a basis of equality, and also for mergers of parallel organisations in the localities, authorising the united C.C. to call a unity congress. In its resolution on “Party Reorganisation”, the Conference recommended the practice of a broad electoral principle and the principle of democratic centralism. Departures from the latter were recognised as admissible only in the event of insuperable practical obstacles. In the “Agrarian Resolution” (on Lenin’s report) the Conference, elaborating the decisions of the Third Congress, proposed that the point in the Party’s agrarian programme dealing with “cut-off lands” should be replaced by the demand for the confiscation of all landed estates and state and church lands. The Conference adopted a resolution on an active boycott of the First Duma. In view of the fact that an armed uprising had already started in Moscow, the Conference, on Lenin’s proposal, hastily wound up its work, and the delegates went home to take part in the uprising. p. 192

239 L’Humanité—a daily founded in 1904 by Jaurès as the organ of the French Socialist Party. In 1905, the paper welcomed the revolution which had started in Russia, voicing the French people’s solidarity with “the Russian nation creating its own 1789”. The newspaper organised a collection of funds in aid of the Russian revolution. During the First World War (1914-18) the paper was in the hands of the extreme Right wing of the French Socialist Party and took a chauvinist stand. In 1918, Marcel Cachin, the outstanding leader of the French and international working-class movement, became the paper’s political director. From 1918 to 1920, the paper opposed the imperialist policy of the French Government, which had sent its troops to fight against the Soviet Republic. From December 1920, following the split in the French Socialist Party and the formation of the Communist Party of France, the paper became the latter’s Central Organ. p. 192

240 La Tribune Russe—a bulletin of the S.R. Party published in Paris in French from January 1904 to December 1909 and from October 1912 to July 1913; in 1904 it was published fortnightly and then monthly. p. 192

241 The City and Gubernia Conference of the St. Petersburg Organisa- tion of the R.S.D.L.P. met at Terioki on January 6 (19), 1907. It was attended by 70 delegates with vote (42 Bolsheviks and 28 Mensheviks). Four representatives of the Menshevik C.C. and C.O., one representative each from the St. Petersburg Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. and from the Editorial Board of the Bolshevik newspaper Proletary, and others attended with voice only. When the credentials were verified, it turned out that in some subdistricts, mainly represented by the Mensheviks, there had been breaches of the resolution of the St. Petersburg Committee requiring 518 NOTES

that elections of delegates to the Conference should be held only after discussions by Party members of the question of whether agreements with the Cadets ought to be concluded. The Confer- ence regarded such credentials as invalid. It rejected the proposal motioned by the representative of the C.C. that the Conference should be divided into two sections (the city and the gubernia) in accordance with the existing electoral districts, for the proposal was aimed at giving the Mensheviks an artificial superiority at the Conference. The Mensheviks used this decision as a pretext for breaking with the revolutionary Social-Democrats and making a deal with the Cadets; they walked out, splitting the St. Peters- burg organisation on the eve of the election. The other delegates decided to continue the Conference. Lenin gave the report on Duma-electoral agreements, and after a debate the Conference affirmed the “Minority Opinion” entered by the Bolsheviks at the Second (First All-Russia) Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. (pp. 188-91). The Conference rejected the idea of forming a bloc with the Cadets and decided to propose to the S.R.s and the Trudoviks an agreement for the election period, provided they repudiated the idea of any alliance with the Cadets. The Conference was described in detail in Lenin’s “The Social- Democrats and the Duma Elections”, “‘When You Hear the Judge- ment of a Fool’ ... (From the Notes of a Social-Democratic Publicist)”, “The Workers’ Party Election Campaign in St. Peters- burg”, “The Social-Democratic Election Campaign in St. Peters- burg”, “The Protest of the Thirty-One Mensheviks” et al. (see present edition, Vol. 11, pp. 431-55, 456-74, 426-30; Vol. 12, pp. 15-23, 29-32). p. 193 242 The note was published in the “Press Review” section in No. 7 of the newspaper Novy Luch (New Ray) on February 27, 1907, in reply to Martov’s feuilleton “This Is the Limit”, which appeared in No. 48 of Russkaya Zhizn on February 25 (March 10), 1907. p. 196 243 Russkaya Zhizn (Russian Life)—a legal Left Cadet daily published in St. Petersburg from January 1 (14), 1907. From its No. 38 of February 14 (27), the paper passed into the hands of the Men- sheviks. Among those who wrote for it were P. B. Axelrod, F. I. Dan, V. I. Zasulich, L. Martov and G. V. Plekhanov. It was closed down on March 2 (15). p. 196 244 The Fifth Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. was held in London from April 30 to May 19 (May 13 to June 1), 1907. It was attended by 336 delegates representing more than 147,000 members: 105 Bol- sheviks, 97 Mensheviks, 57 Bundists, 44 Polish Social-Democrats, 29 members of the Social-Democracy of the Latvian Territory, and 4 “non-faction” delegates. The large industrial centres were represented by Bolsheviks. The St. Petersburg Party organisation sent 12 Bolsheviks of its 17 delegates; the Moscow City and Moscow District, 16 out of 19; the Urals, 19; Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Vladi- mir, Kostroma District, Bryansk, Kazan and Krasnoyarsk, Bol- sheviks only. Lenin was a delegate to the Congress from the Upper NOTES 519 o Kama organisation. At the Congress there was a well-knit group of Bolsheviks led by Lenin, among them A. S. Bubnov, I. F. Dubro- vinsky, M. N. Lyadov, V. P. Nogin, M. N. Pokrovsky, K. N. Sa- moilova, S. G. Shahumyan, J. V. Stalin, A. M. Stopani, I. A. Teodorovich, M. G. Tskhakaya, K. Y. Voroshilov, and Y. M. Yaroslavsky. Maxim Gorky attended the Congress with voice only. Following a long and sharp debate the Congress adopted this agenda: 1) Report of the Central Committee. 2) Report of the Duma group and its set-up. 3) Attitude to the bourgeois parties. 4) The Duma. 5) “Labour congress” and non-Party labour organisations. 6) Trade unions and the Party. 7) Partisan action. 8) Unemployment, economic crisis and lockouts. 9) Organisational questions. 10) International Congress at Stuttgart (May Day, militarism). 11) Work in the army. 12) Miscellaneous. In view of the work of the Congress being protracted, the questions of unemployment, of the economic crisis and the lockouts, and the International Congress at Stuttgart were taken off the agenda. Lenin was elected to the presidium of the Congress and chaired the 6th, 7th, 14th, 15th, 27th, 34th and 35th sittings; he gave the report and delivered the summing-up speech on the key item of the agenda—the attitude to the bourgeois parties; he also spoke on the C.C. report on its work, the report on the Duma group activity, for inclusion in the agenda of the general theoretical questions of the principles underlying the Party’s tactics in the bourgeois revolution, against the Mensheviks, the Bundists and Trotsky (see present edition, Vol. 12, pp. 437-88). At the Congress the Bolsheviks were supported by the delegates of the Social-Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania and the Social-Democrats of the Latvian Territory. Having rallied them on a revolutionary platform, the Bolsheviks secured a majority and a victory for the revolutionary Marxist line. The Congress adopted Bolshevik resolutions on all major questions. It amended the Party Rules, eliminating the two-centre arrangement (election of the C.C. and the C.O by the congress). Under the amended Rules, only the C.C was elected, while the C.O. was to be appointed by the C.C. and was to work under its control. The Rules provided for periodical Party conferences to discuss the most important aspects of Party life. To the Central Committee were elected five Bolsheviks, four Mensheviks, two Polish Social-Democrats and one Latvian Social-Democrat; ten Bolsheviks, seven Mensheviks, three Polish and two Latvian Social-Democrats were elected alternate members. Among the Bolsheviks elected to the C.C as full and alternate members were V. I. Lenin, I. F. Dubrovinsky, F. E. Dzerzhinsky, L. B. Krasin, J. Marchlewski, V. P. Nogin and L. Tyszka. Three more persons were subsequently nominated for the C.C.: two from the Bund and one from the Latvian Social-Democrats. As the C.C. leadership could not be reliable, for it consisted of representatives of different trends (those of the non-Russian Social-Democratic organisations frequently vacillated between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks), a Bolshevik Centre headed 520 NOTES

by Lenin was elected at a sitting of the Bolshevik group towards the end of the Congress. It included the Editorial Board of the newspaper Proletary. The Fifth Congress marked a triumph for Bolshevism in the working-class movement of Russia. Its decisions summed up the victory of Bolshevism over the opportunist, Menshevik wing of the Party during the bourgeois-democratic revolution. The Bolshevik tactics was approved as the common one for the whole Party. p. 197 245 Lenin spoke at the third sitting. Following the adoption of the first two items of the agenda, 1. Report of the Central Committee, and 2. Report of the Duma group and its set-up, the Bundist Zeltser (B. N. Grosser) joined Lieber in motioning that there should be no debate on the general theoretical questions of principle, motioned for inclusion in the agenda (items 3, 4 and 5 of the Bolshevik draft agenda—the aggravation of the economic struggle and the current situation, the class tasks of the proletariat at the present stage, and the attitude to the bourgeois parties). The Bundist Vinitsky (V. D. Medem) who was in the chair motioned a closure of the debate. After Lenin’s speech at the following, fourth, sitting, the debate on the inclusion of the general theoretical questions in the agenda was continued. At the fifth sitting on May 2 (15), the item “On the Attitude to the Bourgeois Parties” was included in the agenda. p. 197 246 Point 4 of the regulations adopted by the Congress provided for a name-ticket vote only when at least 20 delegates demanded one. Lenin spoke in connection with the fact that a proposal had been made to the presidium of the Congress to have the roll-call vote without tickets. By 3 votes to 2 the presidium came out against the tickets, but in view of the differences that arose, the question was referred to the Congress. A majority (144) were in favour of the name-ticket vote. p. 197 247 Lieber’s amendment opened the attack by the Menshevik- Bundist opportunist section of the Congress against the Bolshevik resolution on the attitude to the bourgeois parties, which had been adopted as a basis. Lieber motioned the deletion of the first part of the theoretical resolution: “At present, Social-Democracy is most insistently faced with the task of determining the class content of the various non-proletarian parties, of taking account of the present interrelation of classes and accordingly of defining its attitude to the other parties”. Lieber’s amendment was rejected by the Congress. For the amendments to the resolution on “The Attitude Towards Bourgeois Parties”, see present edition, Vol. 12, pp. 500-05. p. 198

248 Lenin is replying to F. I. Dan, who objected to designating the Congress as the Fifth, as the Bolsheviks had proposed, on the plea that it was an effort to fix the factional dissensions. Actually, however, the Mensheviks and the Bundists had ignored the Third, NOTES 521

Bolshevik, Congress. The Congress adopted the proposal of the Bundist Shanin (L. G. Shapiro) to designate it as the “London Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.” p. 199

249 The draft resolution of the Second Congress of the Social-Democracy of the Latvian Territory, “On the Tasks of the Proletariat of the Current State of the Bourgeois-Democratic Revolution”, written by Lenin, was annexed, without debate, to the minutes of the Congress and published in No. 78 of the newspaper Zihña on July 7, 1907. The minutes of the Congress have not been preserved. The Second Congress of the Social-Democracy of the Latvian Ter- ritory was held in London from May 21 to 25 (June 3 to 7), 1907, just after the Fifth (London) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. By then there were almost 13,000 organised Party members. The Congress was attended by 26 delegates with vote and 10 with voice only. The agenda was: 1) Reports of the Central Committee, of the Auditing Committee and local organisations. 2) Crises, lockouts and unemployment. 3) On the tasks of the proletariat at the present moment of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. 4) On agitation in the army. 5) On the trade unions. 6) On propaganda and agitation. 7) Organisational questions, etc. The agrarian question had been removed from the agenda, evidence of the erroneous attitude of the Latvian Social-Democrats. At the Congress there was a sharp struggle between the revolutionary Social-Democrats and the opportunists, especially on the C.C. report. Lenin took an active part in the work of the Congress. At the afternoon sitting on May 24 (June 6), 1907, he gave a report on the tasks of the proletariat at the present moment of the bourgeois- democratic revolution (there is a very bad record of the report— a retranslation from the Latvian into Russian made at the Police Department). The Congress showed that Bolshevism had won strong positions in Latvia: it adopted Bolshevik decisions on the question of the trade unions, unemployment, and democratic and military organisations. The Congress elected a new Central Committee, consisting in the main of revolutionary Social-Democrats, and authorised the C.C. to publish a manifesto “To the Latvian Proletariat”, drawn up in the Bolshevik spirit. Zihña (Ciña) (Struggle)—the Central Organ of the Latvian Social- Democrats, founded in March 1904. It was published illegally in Riga at big intervals until August 1909, and then abroad. On the occasion of its hundredth issue in 1910, it carried an article by Lenin, “The Jubilee Number of Zihña”, giving a high appraisal of the revolutionary activity of the Latvian Social-Democrats (see present edition, Vol. 16, pp. 260-64). The paper also carried a number of Party documents written by Lenin. Among its constant and active contributors were P. I. Stu0ka, one of the organisers of the Communist Party of Latvia, and the popular poet J. Rainis. From April 1917, the newspaper was published legally in Pet- rograd, Riga and elsewhere, and from August 1919, when the 522 NOTES

counter-revolution temporarily won out in Latvia, it was again published illegally in Riga. After the establishment of the Soviet power in June 1940, the paper became the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Latvia and the Supreme Soviet of the Latvian Republic. p. 199

250 The International Socialist Congress at Stuttgart (the Seventh Congress of the Second International) was held from August 18 to 24, 1907. The Congress was attended by 886 delegates representing socialist parties and trade unions. The German delegation was especially numerous (289 persons), most of them trade union officials, a fact which had a strong effect on the stand of the German Social- Democratic Party in the discussion and adoption of the Congress resolutions. The delegation from Russia consisted of 37 Social-Democrats, 21 S.R.s and 7 trade unionists. On the Bolshevik delegation were V. I. Lenin, A. A. Bogdanov, I. P. Goldenberg (Meshkovsky), B. A. Knunyants, M. M. Litvinov, A. V. Lunacharsky, N. A. Se- mashko and M. Tskhakaya. The Congress examined the following questions: 1) Militarism and international conflicts. 2) Relations between political parties and trade unions. 3) Colonial question. 4) Immigration and emigra- tion of workers. 5) Women’s suffrage. Lenin held several conferences of Bolshevik delegates to define their line in the Social-Democratic section, in the Russia delegation and at the Congress; he took part in the meetings of the Social- Democratic section, where he fought the opportunist line of the Mensheviks, and in the meetings of the Russia delegation, where he defended the R.S.D.L.P. stand against the S.R.s. During the Congress, Lenin carried out a great deal of work in uniting the Left-wing forces in international Social-Democ- racy, resolutely fighting the opportunists and revisionists. The conferences he organised with Left-wingers (Clara Zetkin, Rosa Luxemburg, Leon Tyszka, Georg Ledebour and others) were the first step in rallying the revolutionary Marxists. The work of the Congress was concentrated in the committees, which drafted the resolutions for the Plenary Meetings. Lenin took part in the work of the committee on “Militarism and International Conflicts”. In the discussion of the draft resolution motioned by August Bebel, Lenin proposed amendments, which were supported by the Polish Social-Democrats, and secured a basic change in the draft in the spirit of revolutionary Marxism. There was an acute struggle on the colonial question. The opportunist majority of the committee, headed by the Dutch “socialist” Van Kol, motioned an opportunist draft resolution which was supported by a majority of the German delegation. The resolution on the colonial question adopted by the Congress denounced all colonial policy straightforwardly and without reservations. The Congress adopted a resolution on the immigration and emi- gration of workers, which met the demands of the revolutionary NOTES 523

Social-Democrats, and of the internationalist education of workers in all countries. Lenin attached great importance to the adoption by the Con- gress of a resolution on the relations between the trade unions and the political party of the working class. In the committee Lenin’s line on the partisanship of the trade unions was supported by A. V. Lunacharsky. On this question, contrary to the efforts of the Right wing, the Congress adopted a resolution confirming the principle of partisanship of the trade unions. For Lenin’s articles on the Stuttgart Congress see present edition, Vol. 13, pp. 75-93. p. 200 251 At the Stuttgart Congress, Lenin first met and got to know Clara Zetkin, who, together with other Left-wing German Social- Democrats, stood up for the tactics of revolutionary Marxism, and opposed the opportunists and revisionists. A translation of Clara Zetkin’s article “International Socialist Congress in Stuttgart” was edited by Lenin, who also supplied the notes, explaining the questions on which there had been a struggle against the opportunist section of the Congress delegates. Clara Zetkin’s article was published in the Bolshevik miscellany Zarnitsy (Summer Lightning). p. 201 252 Die Gleichheit (Equality)—a Social-Democratic fortnightly, an organ of the women’s labour movement in Germany, and then of the international women’s movement; published at Stuttgart from 1890 to 1925; from 1892 to 1917 it was edited by Clara Zetkin. p. 201 253 Tovarishch (Comrade)—a bourgeois daily published in St. Peters- burg from March 15 (28), 1906, to December 30, 1907 (January 12, 1908). The paper was nominally independent, but was in fact an organ of the Left-wing Cadets. Among those who worked closely with the paper were S. N. Prokopovich and Y. D. Kuskova. Men- sheviks also contributed to the paper. p. 202 254 Znamya Truda (Banner of Labour)—the Central Organ of the S. R. Party published in Paris from July 1907 to April 1914. p. 207 255 The International Socialist Bureau (I.S.B.)—the standing executive and information organ of the Second International; the decision to set up the I.S.B., consisting of representatives of the socialist parties of all countries, was adopted at the Paris Congress of the Second International in September 1900. G. V. Plekhanov and B. N. Krichevsky were the Russian Social-Democrats elected to the I.S.B. From 1905, Lenin was the R.S.D.L.P. representative on the I.S.B. In the I.S.B., Lenin carried on a resolute struggle against the opportunist leaders of the Second International. The I.S.B. wound up its activities in 1914. p. 207 256 Khlestakov—a liar and boaster in Nikolai Gogol’s comedy The Inspector-General. p. 208 257 French Radicals and Radical-Socialists—a bourgeois party in 524 NOTES

France, formalised, in 1901, actually existing since the 1880s. Until the First World War (1914-18), it mainly represented the interests of the petty and middle bourgeoisie; in the inter-war period, the influence of the big bourgeoisie increased in the party whose leaders have repeatedly headed the French Government. p. 209 258 The Third Duma held five sessions from November 1 (14), 1907, to June 9 (22), 1912. Elected on the basis of the June 3 electoral law the Third Duma was dominated by the Black Hundreds and the Octobrists, and was a pliant tool of the tsarist government in its counter-revolutionary policy of violence and repression against the revolutionary forces of Russia. At the opening of the first session there were 11 parties and groups, including: Right-wing (extreme Right-wing, nationalist and moderate Right-wing)—147 deputies; Octobrists—154; Polish-Lithuanian-Byelorussian group—7; Polish kolo—11; Pro- gressive group—28; Moslem group—8; Cadets—54; Trudovik group—14; and Social-Democrats—19. The Social-Democratic group in the Third Duma, despite the very difficult conditions, the small size of the group and some initial mistakes, did a great deal, thanks to the presence of the Bolshevik deputies, in exposing the anti-popular policy of the Third Duma, and in the political education of the proletariat and peasantry of Russia, through speeches in the Duma and work outside it. p. 209 259 The Electoral Law of December 11 (?4), 1905, on the convocation of a “legislative” Duma was issued by the tsarist government at the height of the Moscow armed uprising. It assured the landowners and capitalists of overriding domination in the Duma. The First Duma, elected under the law, was a Cadet one. p. 209 260 Octobrists—members of the Octobrist Party (or the Union of Octo- ber Seventeen) formed in Russia after the issue of the tsar’s manifesto of October 17 (30), 1905. It was a counter-revolutionary party representing and fighting for the interests of the big bourgeoisie and landowners engaged in capitalist operations; it was headed by the well-known Moscow industrialist and real-estate man A. I. Guchkov and the big landowner M. V. Rodzyanko. The Octobrists gave full support to the tsarist government’s domestic and foreign policy. p. 209 261 Union of the Russian People—an ultra-reactionary, diehard organisation of monarchists, formed in St. Petersburg in October 1905 to fight the revolutionary movement. It had branches in many towns of Russia. The Union wanted to preserve the autocracy, semi-feudal landed estates and privileges for the gentry. “Orthodoxy, Autocracy National Character”, the nationalistic slogan of the serf period, was its programme slogan. Its chief methods of fighting the revolution were pogroms and assassinations. After the dispersal of the Second Duma, the Union broke up into two organisations: the Chamber of St. Michael the Archan- NOTES 525

gel, led by Purishkevich, which called for the use of the Third Duma for counter-revolutionary ends, and the Union of the Rus- sian People itself, led by Dubrovin, which continued the tactics of open terrorism. Both outfits were liquidated during the bourgeois- democratic revolution in February 1917. After the October Socia- list Revolution, former members of these outfits took an active part in counter-revolutionary revolts and plots against the Soviet power. p. 212 262 A Plenary Meeting of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee was held at Geneva from August 11 to 13 (24 to 26), 1908, and was attended by 12 persons, five Bolsheviks (V. I. Lenin, I. F. Dubrovinsky and V. K. Taratuta among them), three Mensheviks, one Latvian Social-Democrat, one Polish Social-Democrat and two Bundists. On the agenda were these questions: 1) report on the convocation of the Plenary Meeting; 2) all-Russia conference; 3) Central Bureau Abroad and promotion groups; 4) organisation of the Central Committee; 5) financial matters; 6) report of the C.C. to the Stutt- gart Congress; and 7) current business. At the Plenary Meeting the Bolsheviks administered a resolute rebuff to the Menshevik efforts to do away with the Party’s Central Committee and to frustrate the convocation of a Party conference. The Plenary Meeting adopted decisions on the main items of the agenda as motioned by the Bolsheviks. On Lenin’s proposal, it was decided to start work right away on the convocation of a conference, whose agenda was outlined. The Plenary Meeting adopted Bolshevik resolutions on the organisation of the Central Commit- tee and on the establishment of a Central Bureau Abroad, the latter being based on Lenin’s “Draft Resolution on the Organisa- tion of the Central Bureau Abroad” (pp. 217-18). Lenin was elected to the C.O. Editorial Board from the Bolsheviks. The report on the convocation of the Plenary Meeting was discussed together with the question of organising the Central Com- mittee, for it was learned during the debate that the Mensheviks had been in correspondence with the Bund and that they had actually proposed to liquidate the C.C. as the Party’s governing body under the pretext of “reorganising” it. At the Plenary Meeting itself, the Mensheviks and the Bundists tried hard to cover up the fact. It was in this connection that Lenin handed in his special “Statement on the Convocation of the C.C. Plenary Meeting” and motioned the “Draft Resolution on the Incident over the Convocation of the C.C. Plenary Meeting” which the Plenary Meeting adopted (pp. 216, 217). After the Plenary Meeting, the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, started a broad campaign in preparation for an all-Russia Party conference. p. 216 263 The R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee Bureau Abroad (C.C.B.A.) was set up by the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee Plenary Meeting in August 1908 as a three-man body representing the Party abroad under the Central Committee’s Bureau in Russia. Its duty was to maintain contacts with the Central Committee in Russia 526 NOTES

and its members working abroad, supervise the activity of R.S.D.L.P. promotion groups abroad and their Central Bureau, collect dues for the C.C. fund from organisations abroad and organise the collection of money for the Central Committee. In order to unite all the promotion groups abroad and to subordinate them to a single general Party leadership the August 1908 Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee authorised the C.C.B.A. to hold a special congress of these groups, which it failed to do in 1909 because of stubborn resistance from the Central Bureau of the promotion groups abroad, where the Menshevik liquidators were in control. The January 1910 Plenary Meeting of the Central Com- mittee reorganised the C.C.B.A. and limited its role in directing the Party’s general affairs, correspondingly increasing that of the Central Committee Bureau in Russia. The C.C.B.A. was to have five members, three of them representing the Central Committees of non-Russian national organisations. A stable liquidationist majority was formed in the Central Committee Bureau Abroad, and it did everything to disrupt the work of the central Party bodies. Its anti-Party stand was most clearly revealed in the systematic obstruction to the calling of a C.C. Plenary Meeting, which the Bolsheviks were trying to secure in view of the liquidators’ failure to fulfill the decisions of the C.C.’s January Plenary Meeting. The C.C.B.A.’s liquidationist tactics made the Bolshevik representative Semashko resign from the C.C.B.A. in May 1911. The meeting of R.S.D.L.P. C.C. members called in Paris in June 1911 adopted a decision condemning the C.C.B.A.’s political line and referred the question of its continued existence to the next Plenary Meeting of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee. In November 1911, the Polish Social-Democratic representative was recalled from the C.C.B.A., and he was followed by the Latvian Social-Democrat. The C.C.B.A. dissolved itself in January 1912. p. 217 264 The Fifth All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. was held in Paris from December 21 to 27, 1908 (January 3 to 9, 1909). It was attended by 16 delegates with vote, among them five Bolsheviks, three Mensheviks, five Polish Social-Democrats and three Bund- ists. On the agenda were the following questions: 1) Reports of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee, the Central Committee of the Polish Social-Democrats, the Bund Central Committee, the St. Petersburg organisation, the Moscow, Central Industrial Region, Urals and Caucasian organisations. 2) The present political situation and the Party’s tasks. 3) The Social-Democrat- ic Duma group. 4) Organisational questions in connection with the changed political conditions. 5) Local mergers with non- Russian organisations. 6) Affairs abroad. On every question, the Bolsheviks conducted a relentless struggle against the Menshevik liquidators and their supporters. The Conference resolution “On the Reports” sharply condemned liquidationism as an opportunist trend and called for the most resolute ideological and organisational struggle against any attempts to liquidate the Party. The work of the Conference was centred on Lenin’s report “On the Present Moment and the Tasks of the Party”. The Mensheviks NOTES 527

0 tried in vain to get the item on the agenda. The Conference adopted the resolution motioned by Lenin with slight amendments (see present edition, Vol. 15, pp. 321-24). The resolution “On the Social-Democratic Group in the Duma”, motioned by the Bolsheviks, criticised the activity of the group and stated its concrete tasks. The Mensheviks objected to any indication of the Duma group’s mistakes in the Conference decisions and opposed the Central Committee’s right of veto in respect of the group. The otzovists also came out against the Leninist line in respect of the Duma group. The Conference adopted the Bolshevik resolution, whose text included a part of Lenin’s second variant of “Practical Instructions on Voting for the Budget by the Social- Democratic Group in the Duma” and all of his “Addendum to the Resolution on ‘The Social-Democratic Group in the Duma’” (see present edition,FROM Vol. 15, pp. MARX 326-27, 328). During the discussion of the organisational question, the Bolsheviks proposed a draft resolution stating that the Party should devote special attention to the establishmentTO MAO and strengthening of illegal Party organisations, making use of an extensive network of diverse legal societies for work among the masses. The Mensheviks were actually trying to liquidate the illegal Party and stop all revolutionary work. In his speech on the organisational question, Lenin sharply criticised the resolution of the Menshevik liquidators and their attempts to justify those who had deserted from the Party in the years of reaction. The Conference adopted Lenin’s “Direc- tives for the Committee on Questions of Organisation” (see present edition Vol. 15, p. 355) and set up a committee to draft a resolution. The committee, and then the Conference itself, adopted the Bolshevik draft resolution.NOT The FOR Conference’s resolution on the local merger of national organisations resolutely rejected the principle of federalism, which the Bundists supported, as they wanted workersCOMMERCIAL in the Party to be compartmentalised on national lines. During the discussion of the Central Committee’s work, the Mensheviks proposed that its seat should be transferred to Russia and that the DISTRIBUTION C.C. Bureau Abroad should be eliminated. The liquidationist draft resolutions were rejected. The Conference adopted a resolution recognising “the existence abroad of a general Party representative body in the form of the Central Committee Bureau Abroad as being useful and necessary”. A Bolshevik resolution was adopted on the Central Organ; the Conference rejected the Menshevik proposal to have the publication of the C.O. transferred to Russia. The Bolsheviks won a great victory at the Conference in their struggle against the Menshevik liquidators. The Conference decisions also dealt a blow at the otzovists. In the years of reaction, the Party was guided by the decisions of this Conference. Lenin said that the Fifth All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. “has led the Party out on to the road, and evidently marks a turning- point in the development of the Russian working-class movement after the victory of the counter-revolution” (see present edition, Vol. 15, p. 345). p. 218 528 NOTES

265 On the strength of the short record of Lenin’s speech, it is impossible to say how fully his speech on the organisational question on December 24, 1908 (January 6, 1909) reflected all the questions listed in the outline, but these suggest that it may have been written during the debate on the organisational question. p. 218

266 A reference to the Party’s twelve-man Central Committee elected at the Fifth (London) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., the five meaning its narrow group working in Russia. Lenin’s ironical quip about the “angelic order” of the five seems to refer to the draft resolution of the Menshevik liquidators proposing to eliminate the C.C. Bureau Abroad and concentrate all Party guidance in the hands of the five in Russia. p. 218 267 Lenin made the statement at the Conference on December 24 1908 (January 6, 1909), after the slanderous statement by a member of the Caucasian delegation, the Menshevik N. Ramishvili (Pyotr). It became known at the Central Committee Plenary Meeting in August 1908 that the Menshevik liquidators had tried, even before the Plenary Meeting, to have the C.C. eliminated as the governing body of the Party and its activity confined to the func- tions of information. The plan to eliminate the C.C. was set out in a letter addressed in June 1908 by B. Gorev, a member of the C C., and A. Martynov a member of the Golos Sotsial-Demokrata Editorial Board, “To All Menshevik Organisations”. At the Plenary Meeting itself the Mensheviks tried hard to cover up their intention to liquidate the C.C. (pp. 216-17). The Bolsheviks exposed the disorganising, anti-Party activity of the liquidators. The C.C. Plenary Meeting adopted Bolshevik draft resolutions on all the main items of the agenda. At the Fifth All-Russia Conference members of the Golos Sotsial-Demokrata Editorial Board Dan and Axelrod and C.C. member N. Ramishvili, who had credentials from the Caucasian organisation, took a common, extreme liquidationist stand. p. 219 268 Golos Sotsial-Demokrata (The Voice of the Social-Democrat)— the Menshevik organ abroad, first published in Geneva and then in Paris from February 1908 to December 1911. Its editors were P. B. Axelrod, F. I. Dan, L. Martov, A. Martynov and G. V. Ple- khanov. From its first issue, the paper stood up for the liquidators, justifying their anti-Party activity. Following Plekhanov’s withdrawal from the Editorial Board over the paper’s liquidationist stand, it crystallised as the ideological centre of liquidationism. p. 219 269 Lenin entered his statement of fact at the last, ninth, sitting of the Conference on December 26, 1908 (January 8, 1909). The minutes show that the sitting continued its discussion of the resolution on the Social-Democratic Duma group. During the discussion of the point on budget voting, Lenin motioned his wording of this part of the resolution (see present edition, Vol. 15, pp. 326-27). In the minutes there is an amendment by M. N. Lyadov proposing that the end of the resolution “and trade union organisations” NOTES 529

should be worded as “after exchange of opinion with representatives of the trade unions”. Lyadov said this was necessary because the draft resolution under discussion tended to narrow down the Central Committee’s powers. Lenin opposed Lyadov’s amendment, saying that the C.C. had the right of veto in respect of the Social- Democratic Duma group. Lyadov’s amendment was rejected. The decision on the C.C.’s right of veto in respect of the Duma group was adopted at the same sitting. It said that in view of its responsibility for the work of the group the C.C. must use its right of veto unhesitatingly “where the group’s decisions threaten to harm the Party”. p. 220

270 Lenin motioned the statement at the Conference on December 26, 1908 (January 8, 1909) during the discussion of the resolution on the Central Committee’s work. The Menshevik liquidators had tried to liquidate the Central Committee as the Party’s governing body even before the Central Committee’s Plenary Meeting in August 1908. Accordingly, Lenin motioned his “Statement on the Convocation of the C.C. Plenary Meeting” at the Plenary Meeting on August 12 (25), 1908 (p. 216). The resolution “On the Incident over the Convocation of the C.C. Plenary Meeting” was adopted the following day on Lenin’s motion (p. 217). p. 220

271 The plan was written in 1908 or 1909, but the Institute of Marxism- Leninism has no direct information on those lectures. Those who were there recall that Lenin read some lectures on philosophy in the Bolshevik circle in Paris in early 1909. Mention of industry in 1907 is an indication that the plan was written later than 1907, since the statistical data for that year could not have been available before the beginning of the following one. The reference to “present-day opportunists (Bogdanov)” in point 6 of the section “Philosophical Materialism” implies that the plan was written not earlier than the second half of March 1908, just when (not later than April 3 [16]) Lenin had sent to the press his article “Marxism and Revisionism”, in which he made his first press attack on Bogdanov for his opportunist, revisionist views in philosophy. Almost all the points of the section “Philo- sophical Materialism” are reflected in his book “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism”; some points of the section “The Agrarian Question” are dealt with in his works on the agrarian question written in 1908. p. 221

272 The Conference was called on Lenin’s initiative, and was held in Paris from June 8 to 17 (21 to 30), 1909. It was attended by nine members of the Bolshevik Centre, the supreme body of the Bol- shevik group, elected by the Bolshevik delegates at the Fifth (London) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.; representatives of the St. Petersburg, Moscow Region and Urals organisations were also there. It was held under Lenin’s guidance, and his speeches on all the main items of the agenda determined the character of its work. The otzovists, ultimatumists and god-builders were represented by A. Bogdanov (Maximov) and 530 NOTES

V. L. Shantser (Marat), who were supported by V. M. Shulyatikov (Donat), representing the Moscow Region organisation. On several questions G. Y. Zinoviev, L. B. Kamenev, A. I. Rykov and M. P. Tomsky took a conciliatory stand. The Conference discussed the following questions: otzovism and ultimatumism; god-building tendencies among Social-Democrats; attitude to the activity in the Duma among the other branches of Party work; the tasks of the Bolsheviks in the Party; the Party school being set up on Capri; unity of the group; the agitation for a Bol- shevik Congress or a Bolshevik conference separate from the Party; the split-away of A. Bogdanov, and other questions. Lenin gave detailed information on the state of affairs in the Party and the Bolshevik group. His propositions became the basis of decisions adopted by the Conference. The Conference resolutely condemned otzovism-ultimatumism as a harmful and dangerous trend within the working-class movement; it sharply criticised the philosophical views of the otzovists-ultimatumists, which were especially strikingly revealed in the idea of god-building. Bogdanov, the leader and ideologist of the otzovists, ultimatumists and god-builders, who had made an attempt on the unity of the Bolshevik group and had taken the way of revising Marxism and substituting for it an idealist, reactionary philosophy, was expelled from the Bolshevik group. The Conference decisions were of great importance for the whole Party. Lenin said that they gave great harmony and completeness to the political line which had been worked out by the Party in the years of reaction. For details about the Conference see present edition, Vol. 15, pp. 425-51. p. 222

273 The resolution motioned by Stanislav (“Yer”, S. Volsky—A. V. So- kolov) in the Moscow Committee expressed no confidence in the Editorial Board of Proletary and called for a Bolshevik conference to elect a new ideological centre. The Moscow Committee rejected the resolution “by every vote except his own” (see present edition Vol. 16, p. 53). The text of the resolution has not been discovered. p. 223

274 Otzovists—representatives of an opportunist trend among the Bolsheviks. Behind a screen of revolutionary talk, the otzovists (A. Bogdanov, G. A. Alexinsky, A. V. Sokolov [S. Volsky], A. V. Lunacharsky, M. N. Lyadov and others) demanded the recall of the Social-Democratic deputies from the Third Duma and an end to work in legal organisations. They held that in the conditions of reaction the Party should conduct illegal activity only, and refused to participate in the Duma, in the workers’ trade unions, co-operatives and other mass legal and semi-legal organisations. Ultimatumism was a variety of otzovism. The ultimatumists differed from the otzovists only in form. They proposed presenting the Social-Democratic Duma group with an ultimatum that it should implicitly submit to the Party Central Committee’s decisions and should be recalled from the Duma in the event of noncompliance. Ultimatumism was in fact a camouflaged NOTES 531

otzovism, and Lenin said the ultimatumists were “bashful otzovists”. The otzovists were doing the Party a great deal of harm. Their policy could lead to the Party’s separation from the masses and its transformation into a sectarian organisation incapable of mustering forces for another revolutionary upsurge. Lenin exposed the otzovists as “liquidators inside out”, and declared a relentless fight against them. He wrote: “Otzovism is not Bolshevism but the worst political travesty of Bolshevism its worst political enemy could invent” (see present edition, Vol. 15, p. 357). p. 223

275 The Third (Second All-Russia) Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. was held at Kotka, Finland, from July 21 to 23 (August 3 to 5), 1907. It was attended by 26 delegates, nine of them Bolsheviks, five Men- sheviks, five Polish Social-Democrats, five Bundists and two Lat- vian Social-Democrats. Among the delegates were V. I. Lenin, F. E. Dzerzhinsky, A. V. Lunacharsky and Rosa Luxemburg. The Conference was also attended by members and alternate members of the Party Central Committee elected at the Fifth (London) Congress. The need to call an urgent conference (two months after the Fifth Congress) was due to the changed political situation in view of the Third of June counter-revolutionary coup and the elections to the Third Duma. On the agenda of the Conference were the following questions: participation in the elections to the Third Duma, electoral agreements with other parties, electoral platform and the All-Russia Congress of Trade Unions. On the first question, the Conference heard three reports: Lenin’s (against a boycott) and A. Bogdanov’s (for a boycott) from the Bolsheviks, and F. Dan’s, from the Mensheviks and the Bund. The Conference adopted as a basis Lenin’s draft resolution calling on the Party to take part in the electoral campaign and to struggle both against the Rightist parties and against the Cadets (see K.P.S.S. v rezolutsiyakh..., Part I, pp. 173-74). When their resolution was rejected, the Bolsheviks favouring a boycott voted for Lenin’s resolution. The Conference decided that at the first stage of the elections, the Social-Democrats should not enter into any agreements with other parties, agreements being allowed on second and subsequent ballots with all parties left of the Cadets. At the second and subsequent stages of the elections, agreements could be reached with all revolutionary and opposition parties to fight the Rightists. But in the workers’ curia, the Social-Democrats were not to enter into agreements with other parties, with the exception of national Social-Democratic parties outside the R.S.D.L.P., and also the P.P.S. The Conference invited the Central Committee to draw up the electoral platform on the basis of its resolution on participation in the elections to the Third Duma. The Conference heard two reports on the All-Russia Congress of Trade Unions: one for the principle of the partisanship of the trade unions, and another, for the trade unions remaining neutral. There were four draft resolutions on the reports (a Bolshevik, a Menshevik, and two compromise resolutions). The Conference decided to refer them 532 NOTES

to the R.S.D.L P. Central Committee. The Bolshevik draft resolution was based on the draft proposed by Lenin (see K.P.S.S. v rezolutsiyakh..., Part I, p. 180). The importance of the Third Conference lies in the fact that it marked out the principles of the Party’s tactics in the new historical situation—the period of the Stolypin reaction. p. 223

276 Central Organ of the R.S.D.L.P. (C.O.)— the illegal newspaper Sotsial-Demokrat published from February 1908 to January 1917. The first issue prepared by the Bolsheviks and partly printed by a private printer at Vilno was confiscated by the tsarist secret police. Soon another attempt was made to publish the newspaper in St. Petersburg. The bulk of the printing likewise fell into the hands of the gendarmes. Subsequently, the paper was published abroad: Nos. 2-32 (February 1909-December 1913) in Paris; Nos. 33-58 (November 1914-January 1917) in Geneva. There were altogether 58 issues, of which five had supplements. Lenin was the actual editor of the paper, and his articles were the centre- pieces of the newspaper. More than 80 articles and items by Lenin appeared in Sotsial-Demokrat.p.224

277 The pro-Party Mensheviks, headed by G. V. Plekhanov, opposed the liquidators in the years of reaction. While retaining their Menshevik positions, the Plekhanovites wanted the illegal Party organisation preserved and strengthened, and on that point favoured a bloc with the Bolsheviks. Lenin urged the Bolsheviks to move nearer to the pro-Party Mensheviks, saying that there could be an agreement with them on the basis of a struggle for the Party, and against the liquidators, “...without any ideological compromises, without any glossing over of tactical and other differences of opinion within the limits of the Party line” (see present edition, Vol. 16, p. 101). The pro-Party Mensheviks joined the Bolsheviks in working in the local Party committees, and contributed to Bolshevik publications. At the end of 1911, Plekhanov broke up the bloc with the Bolsheviks. On the pretext of fighting the “faction- alism” and the split within the R.S.D.L.P., he tried to reconcile the Bolsheviks and the opportunists. In 1912, the Plekhanovites joined the Trotskyites, Bundists and liquidators in opposing the decisions of the Prague Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. p. 224 278 A reference to A. Bogdanov’s speech in the debate on the report on otzovism and ultimatumism, which said that Rosa Luxem- burg had sharply condemned both. In an effort to cast doubt on her criticism, Bogdanov recalled that in 1904 and 1905 Rosa Luxemburg had opposed the Bolsheviks. p. 225 279 The school was set up in 1909 on the isle of Capri, Italy, by the otzovists, ultimatumists and god-builders. The conference of the enlarged Editorial Board of Proletary exposed the factional anti- Bolshevik character of the school, stating that its organisers were pursuing “not aims common to the Bolshevik wing as a whole, as an ideological trend in the Party, but the private aims of a group with a separate ideology and policy”. The school was reso- NOTES 533

lutely condemned as a “new centre being formed for a faction breaking away from the Bolsheviks” (see present edition, Vol. 15, p. 450). It was opened in August. Lectures were given by A. Bogdanov, G. Alexinsky, A. Lunacharsky, Maxim Gorky, M. N. Lyadov M. N. Pokrovsky and V. A. Desnitsky. Lenin rejected a formal invitation to go and lecture at the school. In a letter to its students, who were insisting that he read them a series of lectures, Lenin said that he could not do so because the school had been “deliberately hidden away from the Party” in a “remote foreign spot” and was of a factional character. He invited the students to come to Paris “to study Social-Democracy”, instead of the “separatist factional ‘science’” of the otzovists and god-builders (see present edition, Vol. 15, pp. 472-78). For a detailed history of the school and its characteristic, see Lenin’s articles “The Faction of Supporters of Otzovism and God- Building” and “A Shameful Fiasco” (present edition, Vol. 16, pp. 29-61, 85-86). p. 225

280 A reference to the failure to attend the Fifth Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. (All-Russia Conference of 1908) by the representative of the Duma Social-Democratic group. The rapporteur Vishnevsky (I. P. Goldenberg) said it was accidental. p. 227

281 A group of intellectuals acting as advisers to the Social-Democratic group in the Third Duma, most of them liquidators and revisionists—A. N. Potresov, S. N. Prokopovich, etc. Making use of the fact that the leaders of the Bolshevik Party were in hiding and unable to work legally with the Duma group, these persons tried to direct the group’s activity along anti-Party lines, and this gave rise to the question of doing without their services. p. 227

282 A reference to the establishment of a promotion committee for the Social-Democratic group in the Third Duma. The Conference decided to set up a promotion committee, and Lenin, who was elected to the committee, was very active on it. In particular he wrote his “Explanatory Note on the Draft of the Main Grounds of the Bill on the Eight-Hour Working Day” (see present edition Vol. 16, pp. 110-16). p. 227 283 A reference to the paper which was to be published by the R.S.D.L.P. group in the Duma. Subsequently, from 1910 to 1912 the legal Bolshevik newspaper Zvezda (The Star) was published with the participation of the Duma group. p. 228 284 This addendum was incorporated in point three of the first section of the resolution (see K.P.S.S. v rezolutsiyakh..., Part I, p. 223). p. 228 285 Dal (Horizon)—a literary and socio-political magazine published by the liquidators in St. Petersburg. Three issues were put out: the first in 1908, the second and third in 1909. p. 229 286 Lenin’s proposal was incorporated in the resolution “On Legal Publishing” (see K.P.S.S. v rezolutsiyakh..., Part I, p. 232). p. 229 534 NOTES

287 The First World Socialist Congress of the Second Interna- tional was held in Paris in July 1889. Ideological guidance was provided by Frederick Engels. There was acute political struggle between the Marxists and the anarchists, who repudiated political struggle. The Congress decided on the need to strengthen the mass working-class movement and set up socialist parties for political struggle and the winning of power by the proletariat. The Congress said that the ultimate aim of the labour movement was socialism and, despite anarchist protests, resolved to struggle for an eight- hour working day, higher wages, abolition of payments in kind, etc. It also adopted the historic decision of celebrating May Day by staging demonstrations as a mark of proletarian solidarity. p. 231 288 The International Socialist Congress in Copenhagen (Eighth Con- gress of the Second International) was held from August 28 to September 3, 1910. It was attended by 896 delegates representing countries in Europe, North and South America, South Africa and Australia. Russia like Austria, Britain, France and Germany, had 20 votes, of which the Social-Democrats (including the Lithuanian and Armenian Social-Democrats) had 10; the S.R.s—7; the trade unions—3. Among those who represented the R.S.D.L.P. were V. I. Lenin, G. V. Plekhanov, A. M. Kollontai and A. V. Luna- charsky. Five committees were set up for preliminary discussion and drafting of resolutions on various questions: co-operatives, trade unions, international solidarity, and unity of the trade union movement in Austria, the struggle against war; labour legislation and unemployment; miscellaneous, including socialist unity, capital punishment, Finland, Argentina, Persia, etc. Lenin was on the co-operative committee, one of the most important ones. The resolution on the struggle against war—“Arbitration Courts and Disarmament”—confirmed the resolution of the Stuttgart Congress of 1907 on “Militarism and International Conflicts”, which included; the amendments motioned by Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg, calling on the socialists of all countries to make use of the economic and political crisis caused by war to overthrow the bourgeoisie. The resolution of the Copenhagen Congress also bound the socialist parties and their representatives in parliaments to demand that their governments reduce armaments, and settle conflicts between states through arbitration courts, and urged the workers of all countries to stage protests against the threat of war. Lenin held a conference of Left-wing Social-Democrats attending the Congress to rally the revolutionary Marxists in the international arena. p. 231 289 Data on the limitation of working hours in various countries are given in the works of Karl Kautsky, Marx’s ökonomische Lehren (The Economic Doctrine of Marx) and Der Arbeiter- shutzgezetzgebung und der Achtstundentag (Legislative Labour Protection and the 8-hour Working Day). p. 232 NOTES 535

290 Meeting of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee members living abroad was held in Paris from May 28 to June 4 (June 10 to 17), 1911. It was prepared and called under Lenin’s direction apart from the Central Committee Bureau Abroad, whose liquidationist majority had repeatedly thwarted the convocation of a C.C. Plenary Meet- ing. Preparations for the meeting began in April 1911. It was to take measures to call a Plenary meeting of the Central Commit- tee and eliminate the grave crisis in which the Party found itself, being virtually without central governing bodies. The meeting was attended by Bolsheviks, Polish and Latvian Social-Democrats one Golos man and one Bundist. The Latvian Social-Democrat M. V. Ozolin announced that in accordance with a decision of his Central Committee he would attend the meeting with voice only. The Bundist Lieber said that he had not been authorised by the Bund C.C. to represent it at the meeting. In view of the forthcoming elections to the Fourth Duma, the meeting outlined measures to elaborate the Party’s tactics in the election campaign and draft an electoral platform. The main item on the agenda was the calling of a Party conference. Because it was impossible to call a Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee right away, the meeting undertook to call a conference, and set up an Organising Commission to prepare the conference. The meeting adopted Lenin’s proposal to set up a Russian collegium for practical work in preparing the conference (see p. 240). The meeting decisions provided for invitations to Party organisations abroad to work together on the Organising Commission. Lenin, who voted for the resolution as a whole, lodged a protest against the invitation to the Organising Commission of representatives of anti-Party groups—the Golos and Vperyod followers (pp. 240-41). The meeting condemned the anti-Party, factional policy of the Central Committee Bureau Abroad, and decided to refer the question of its existence to the C.C. Plenary Meeting. In the voting on the last section of the resolution, Lenin abstained, because he insisted on an immediate reorganisation of the C.C.B.A. To handle technical matters (Party publishing, transportation, etc.). the meeting set up a Technical Commission which was to be responsible to the group of members and alternate members of the Central Committee attending the meeting. A special bulletin issued after the meeting—”Announcement”— set out the circumstances in which the meeting had been called, its composition and purposes. It also contained the resolutions of the meeting. This meeting was an important step in mustering the Party forces, in uniting them for the struggle against the Golos liquidators, the Vperyod followers and the Trotskyites, and for strengthening the Party. Its decisions helped to rally and strengthen local Party organisations. To prepare a general Party conference, Lenin sent to Russia experienced Party workers—the Bolsheviks G. K. Orjonikidze (Sergo), B. A. Breslav (Zakhar) and I. I. Shvarts (Semyon). By September 1911, the meeting decisions were approved by the committees and the Social-Democratic organisations 536 NOTES

of a number of towns in Russia. In September 1911, there was formed the Russian Organising Commission, consisting of representatives of a number of Social-Democratic organisations. The Commission prepared the convocation in January 1912 of the Sixth (Prague) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. For the material on the meeting see also present edition, Vol. 17, pp. 195- 205. p. 233 291 The document is printed from a copy in F. E. Dzerzhinsky’s hand. The original written by Lenin has not been found. The minutes of the June meeting of the C.C. members contain no indication that Lenin made the report at the meeting. It might have been given to the conferees before the meeting opened. p. 233 292 The Plenary Meeting of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee, known as the “unity” meeting, was held in Paris from January 2 to 23 (January 15 to February 5), 1910. It was attended by representatives of all factions and groups and of non-Russian Social-Democratic organisations. The conciliators had a majority at the meeting. Lenin conducted a persistent struggle against the opportunists and conciliators to secure the condemnation of liquidationism and otzovism and to bring the Bolsheviks and the pro-Party Mensheviks closer together. On the agenda were these questions: 1) Report by the Russian Bureau of the C.C. 2) Report by the C.C. Bureau Abroad. 3) Report by the Editorial Board of the Central Organ. 4) Reports by the Central Committees of the non-Russian Social-Democratic Parties. 5) State of affairs in the Party. 6) Convocation of a regular Party conference. 7) Rules of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee, etc. On Lenin’s insistence, the Plenary Meeting adopted the resolution “On the State of Affairs in the Party”, which condemned liquidationism and otzovism, recognised the danger of these trends and urged the need to fight them. Lenin said that the January Plenary Meeting finally determined the Party’s tactical line during the counter-revolutionary period, deciding, in pur- suance of the resolutions of the Fifth (All-Russia) Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. (1908), that liquidationism and otzovism were manifestations of bourgeois influence on the proletariat. The Ple- nary Meeting also connected the question of the need to have real Party unity, with the Party’s ideological and political tasks in the current historical period. At the same time, Lenin sharply condemned the Plenary Meeting’s conciliatory decisions. For details about the Plenary Meeting see Lenin’s “Notes of a Publicist,” (present edition, Vol. 16, pp. 195-259). p. 233

293 A reference to the members and alternate members of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee elected at the Fifth (London) Congress, which was held from April 30 to May 19 (May 13 to June 1), 1907. p. 234

294 The Rules of the Central Committee, adopted at the January 1910 Plenary Meeting of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee, said: “Plenary Meetings (of 15 members) shall be attended by NOTES 537

1) members of the collegium operating in Russia; 2) members of the C.C. Bureau Abroad, with the exception of those who are not members of the C.C.; 3) if these do not add up to the figure of 15, the other candidates shall attend the Plenary Meeting in the following order: a) candidates of the London Congress doing any Party work in Russia; b) members of the C.C. and alternate members living abroad and engaged in work assigned to them by the Central Committee” (K.P.S.S. v rezolutsiyakh..., Part I, p. 239). p. 234 295 The Vperyod group—an anti-Party group of otzovists, ultimatumists and god-builders, organised on the initiative of A. Bogdanov and G. A. Alexinsky in December 1909, following the break-up of the otzovist-ultimatumist factional centre, the Capri school; it had a periodical of the same name. The group, without any support in the working-class movement, broke up in 1913 and 1914, but was formally dissolved after the bourgeois-democratic revolution in February 1917. p. 235 296 Diskussionny Listok (Discussion Bulletin)—a supplement to Sotsial-Demokrat, the Central Organ of the R.S.D.L.P.; it was published in Paris under a decision of the January Plenary Meeting of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee from March 6 (19), 1910, to April 29 (May 12), 1911. There were three issues. On its Editorial Board were representatives of the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, ultimatumists, Bundists, Plekhanovites, Polish Social-Democrats and Latvian Social-Democrats. It carried Lenin’s articles “Notes of a Publicist”, “The Historical Meaning of the Inner-Party Struggle in Russia” and “A Conversation Between a Legalist and an Opponent of Liquidationism” (see present edition, Vol. 16, pp. 195-259, 374-92, and Vol. 17, pp. 179-88). p. 235

297 A reference to the School Commission (Committee) set up by the January 1910 Plenary Meeting of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee, to organise a Party school abroad. It consisted of nine persons: two Bolsheviks, two Mensheviks, two Vperyod supporters, and one each from the national organisations—the Bund, the Latvian and the Polish Social-Democrats. p. 235

298 The Fourth Duma opened on November 15 (28), 1912. Elections were held in the autumn of 1912 under the reactionary electoral law of June 3 (16), 1907, and were accompanied by a series of government measures designed to create a Black-Hundred majority in the Duma. Lenin described the election campaign and assessed the class and party composition of the Duma in his article “Results of the Elections” (see present edition, Vol. 18, pp. 493-518). The Social-Democratic group in the Fourth Duma included six Bolsheviks—A. Y. Badayev, M. K. Muranov, G. I. Petrovsky, F. N. Samoilov, N. R. Shagov and R. V. Malinovsky (who later was exposed as a provocateur), seven Mensheviks and one member who did not enjoy full rights (the Warsaw deputy, E. J. Jagiello), and who sided with the Mensheviks. Making use of their slight numerical superiority, the Mensheviks hampered the work of the group 538 NOTES

and blocked the passage of a number of measures proposed by the Bolsheviks. In October 1913, the Bolshevik deputies, on instructions from the Central Committee, withdrew from the united Social-Democratic group and formed their own. Lenin gave day-to-day guidance to the Bolshevik deputies and taught them to make revolutionary use of the Duma rostrum. The Duma proved to be incapable of settling any major questions which the country’s objective development brought up, and its work increasingly boiled down to wordy debate. Its legislative activity was largely designed to strengthen such pillars of the autocracy as the courts, the church and the police. The Duma approved Russia’s entry into the First World War. The Mensheviks and the S.R.s took a defencist stand. Only the Bolshevik Party resolutely opposed the war. The Bolshevik group refused to vote the war credits and started revolutionary propaganda in the masses. In November 1914, the Bolshevik deputies were arrested and committed for trial. In August 1915, the bourgeois and landowner groups set up a “Progressive bloc”, consisting of more than one-half of the deputies. Lenin said it was “the liberal-Octobrist bloc for the purpose of reaching an understanding with the tsar on a programme of reforms and mobilising industry for the victory over Germany” (see present edition, Vol. 21, p. 378). On February 26 (March 11) 1917, the tsar announced the dissolution of the Fourth Duma, but, while not daring to protest openly the deputies decided to continue their sittings unofficially. On February 27 (March 12) they formed a Provisional Committee of the Duma to fight the revolution and save the monarchy. By agreement with the S.R. and Menshevik representatives of the Petrograd Soviet, the Committee decided to set up a bourgeois Provisional Government. The Committee’s members were rabid enemies of the revolution, and at their private meetings demanded the establishment of a military dictatorship and the abolition of the Soviets. On October 6 (19), 1917, under the pressure of the revolutionary masses, the bourgeois Provisional Government was forced to decree the dissolution of the Duma. p. 235

299 Nasha Zarya (Our Dawn)—a legal monthly of the Menshevik liquidators published in St. Petersburg from January 1910 to September 1914. It was edited by A. N. Potresov, and among its contributors were F. I. Dan and S. O. Tsederbaum (V. Yezhov). It was the liquidationist centre in Russia. A resolution of the Sixth (Prague) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. (1912) said that “a section of the Social-Democrats, grouped round the journals Nasha Zarya and Dyelo Zhizni, have openly come out in defence of a trend which the whole Party has recognised as a product of bourgeois influence on the proletariat” (K.P.S.S. v rezolutsiyakh..., Part I, p. 283). p. 235

300 Dyelo Zhizni (Life Cause)—a legal journal, an organ of the Men- shevik liquidators, published in St. Petersburg from January to October 1911. There were nine issues. p. 235 NOTES 539

301 Zvezda (The Star)—a legal Bolshevik newspaper published in St. Petersburg from December 16 (29), 1910, to April 22 (May 5), 1912. It was initially published as a weekly, twice a week from January 21 (February 3), 1912, and three times a week from March 8 (21), 1912. Lenin gave ideological guidance to the newspaper: he carried on a correspondence with the members of the Editorial Board, directing their work, criticising their mistakes, especially in the initial period of its publication, struggling for the paper’s consistent Marxist approach. A great deal of editorial and organisational work was done by N. N. Baturin, N. G. Poletayev, K. S. Yeremeyev and M. S. Olminsky. Among those who took an active part in the paper were V. D. Bonch-Bruyevich and Demyan Bedny. It carried a number of articles by G. V. Plekha- nov. Lenin got Maxim Gorky to write for it. Zvezda enjoyed great prestige among the working people of Russia. p. 236

302 The attendant circumstances were as follows: the Golos Menshe- vik B. I. Gorev (Goldman) came out against the presence at the meeting of the representatives of non-Russian organisations, M. I. Lieber of the Bund and M. V. Ozolin of the Latvian Social- Democrats, without mandates from their Central Committees. Lieber said they had had no time to contact their centres and that he was not representing the Bund. p. 237

303 A reference to the speeches by Gorev (Goldman) and Lieber, who said that there were members of the Russia Bureau in Russia who should be contacted before the C.C. Plenary Meeting is called abroad. p. 237

304 The Central Committee Bureau in Russia was elected at a general meeting of the Collegium of C.C. members, which was active in Russia from 1908. The Bureau was in charge of all the affairs of the Russian Collegium in between general meetings of the C.C. In 1910 and 1911, after the January 1910 Plenary Meeting of the C.C., the Bureau in Russia consisted of the following members and alternate members of the Central Committee: the Bolsheviks I. P. Goldenberg (Meshkovsky) and I. F. Dubrovinsky (Innokenty), and after their arrest, V. P. Nogin (Makar) and G. D. Leiteisen (Lindov). The Menshevik liquidators, members and alternate members of the C.C., kept aloof from its work, while I. A. Isuv (Mikhail), P. A. Bronstein (Yuri) and K. M. Yermolayev (Roman) not only refused to participate but declared that they considered the very existence of the C.C. to be harmful. All the efforts of the Bureau to call the Russian Collegium failed. In March 1911, following the arrest of Nogin and Leiteisen, the Central Committee Bureau in Russia ceased to exist. Lenin gave a positive evaluation of the Russia Bureau’s efforts to organise work in Russia and call the C.C.’s Russian Collegium, but sharply criticised the members’ conciliatory stand. At the Sixth (Prague) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P., the Bureau in Russia was re-established. It consisted of C.C. mem- 540 NOTES

bers: G. K. Orjonikidze, S. S. Spandaryan, J. V. Stalin and Y. M. Sverdlov, and alternate C.C. members: M. I. Kalinin, Y. D. Stasova and others. In view of frequent arrests of Party workers in Russia, the composition of the Bureau was subsequently changed many times, new members being co-opted in place of the old ones. After the bourgeois-democratic revolution in February 1917, the Bureau in Russia ceased to operate. p. 238 305 A statement by the Bundist Ionov (F. M. Koigen) said that not having any powers from the Bund’s C.C., he was unable to attend the meeting and that he would send on his invitation to the Bund’s C.C. at the earliest opportunity. p. 238 306 A reference to the speech by Lieber (Ber) to the effect that there was no need to decide on the question of a C.C. Plenary Meeting by having an urgent meeting of C.C. members, but that a “legal way out” should be sought through the C.C.B.A. p. 238 307 The speech was in reply to Lieber’s statement that the majority of the C.C.B.A. wanted a Plenary Meeting called and were prepared to adopt an official resolution on this question. p. 239 308 A reference to the proposal by the liquidationist majority of the C.C.B.A. to call a C.C. Plenary Meeting in Russia. p. 239

309 This speech, like the next one, is connected with the discussion of the persons entitled to attend a C.C. Plenary Meeting. p. 239

310 The Organising Commission (Organising Commission Abroad, O.C.A.) for convening a general Party conference was set up by the C.C. members’ meeting on June 1 (14), 1911, and consisted of Bolsheviks, conciliators and Polish Social-Democrats. Other organisations and groups abroad invited to take part in the commission did not send their representatives. The O.C. sent G. K. Orjo- nikidze as its agent to Russia to work for the preparation of a general Party conference, and issued an appeal “To All Social-Democrat- ic Party Organisations, Groups and Circles”, urging them to start elections to the Russian Organising Commission. As a result of the work carried out by the Bolsheviks, the R.O.C. was setup. At the end of October, the O.C.A. discussed the R.O.C.’s “Announcement” of its constitution and resolutions stating that it assumed full powers in calling the conference and that the Organ- ising and Technical Commissions Abroad were to be subordinate to the R.O.C. When the conciliatory majority of the O.C.A. refused to abide by these decisions, the Bolsheviks left the O.C.A. On October 30 (November 12), Orjonikidze, who had arrived in Paris, gave a report in the O.C.A. on the activity of the R.O.C. after which the O.C.A. was forced to recognise the governing role of the R.O.C. But soon the O.C.A. started an open struggle against the R.O.C. On November 20 (December 3) it issued a leaflet, “Open Letter to the Russian Organising Commission”, accusing the latter of factional activity. The O.C.A.’s anti-Party activity was exposed by Orjonikidze in his “Letter to the Editorial Board” carried in No. 25 of Sotsial-Demokrat on December 8 (21), 1911. NOTES 541

All the work of calling the general Party conference, held in January 1912, was carried out by the R.O.C. which rallied together the illegal Party organisations in Russia. p. 240 311 The statement also bears the signature of G. Y. Zinoviev. p. 240 312 A reference to the resolution of the June meeting of the C.C. members “On Convening a Party Conference”. p. 240 313 The statement also bears the signature of G. Y. Zinoviev. p. 241 314 The Technical Commission (Technical Commission Abroad, T.C.A.) was set up by the June meeting of the R.S.D.L.P. C.C. members at their sitting of June 1 (14), 1911, to perform the technical work in connection with Party publishing, transportation, etc. As a temporary organ, pending a C.C. Plenary Meeting, the T.C.A. was subordinate to the group of C.C. members who took part in the June meeting. It consisted of one representative each from the Bolsheviks, the conciliators and the Polish Social-Democ- rats. The conciliatory majority of the T.C.A.—M. K. Vladimirov and Y. L. Leder, who supported him—held up the issue of money for the O.C.A., which was to go into a fund for the convocation of the Party conference, as well as appropriations for publishing the Bolshevik newspaper Zvezda, it also tried to hold up the publication of the Party’s Central Organ, the newspaper Sotsial- Demokrat. In its press organ—Informatsionny Bulleten (Information Bulletin)—the T.C.A. attacked Lenin and the Bolsheviks. During the discussion of the “Announcement” and the resolution of the R.O.C. at the T.C.A.’s sitting of October 19 (November 1), the Bolshevik M. F. Vladimirsky motioned that the T.C.A. abide by the decisions of the R.O.C. The motion was rejected. Vla- dimirsky withdrew, and the Bolsheviks severed all ties with the T.C.A. p. 241

315 A reference to the Party school at Longjumeau, a few kilometres from Paris, set up by the Bolsheviks under Lenin’s guidance in the spring of 1911 for the workers of Party organisations of the major proletarian centres in Russia. There were 13 students representing Moscow, St. Petersburg, Baku, Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Nikolayev, Tiflis, Sormovo, Yekaterinoslav Gubernia, Dabrowa District (Poland) and 5 external students. Among them were I. S. Belostotsky, B. A. Breslav, I. D. Chugurin, A. I. Dogadov, A. I. Ivanova, G. K. Orjonikidze, I. V. Prisyagin, E. Prukhnyak, I. I. Shvarts and Y. D. Zevin. Most of them were Bolsheviks, but there were some pro-Party Mensheviks and one Vperyod man. The lecturers were chosen by the School Committee together with the students. Invitations to lecture were sent out to representatives of various trends in the R.S.D.L.P. The Mensheviks L. Martov, F. I. Dan and others declined, and most of the lecturers were Bolsheviks. Lenin was the school’s ideological guide and its principal lecturer. When two-thirds of the students had arrived, Lenin held classes on the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Fre- derick Engels. Lenin read 29 lectures (43 hours) on political econ- 542 NOTES

omy and 12 lectures (18 hours) on the agrarian question. Under the initial plan, the lectures on philosophy were to be given by G. V. Plekhanov. When it turned out that he was not coming after all, the students asked Lenin to give the lectures, and he read three on the materialist view of history. Also at the students’ request, Lenin spoke on the present situation and the state of affairs in the Party. After completing the course on August 17 (30), the students went back for illegal work in Russia. They took an active part in preparing and holding the Sixth (Prague) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. Many of those who graduated from the school subsequently became leading Party and Soviet Government workers. p. 241 316 This plan was the basis of a lecture, “Manifesto of the Liberal Labour Party”, which Lenin read in Paris on November 14 (27), 1911. A reference to an article by N. A. Rozhkov, “The Present State of Russia and the Main Task of the Labour Movement at the Pres- ent Moment”, published in the journal Nasha Zarya No. 9-10 in 1911. p. 242 317 The proposal was motioned by Lenin at a meeting of Bolshevik groups abroad held in Paris on December 16 (29), 1911, when it was examining the question of whether there should be a detailed discussion of the draft Rules of the Organisation Abroad at the meeting itself, or whether they should be referred to the Committee of the Organisation Abroad for co-ordination with the groups and final approval. Lenin’s proposal was adopted by eight votes to one. The meeting was held in Paris from December 14 to 17 (27 to 30), 1911, under Lenin’s direction. It was called on the initiative of the Paris circle for the promotion of the Bolshevik Rabochaya Gazeta, and was aimed at uniting the Bolshevik forces abroad and promoting the convocation of an all-Russia Party conference. It was attended by 11 delegates with vote from the Bolshevik groups of Paris, Nancy, Zurich, Davos, Geneva, Liége, Berne, Bremen and Berlin. The Bolsheviks of Toulouse, Lausanne, London, Brussels, Antwerp, Copenhagen, Nice and other cities were unable to send their representatives for technical and financial reasons. Some Bolshevik groups managed to send in detailed reports. On the agenda were these items: 1) reports of the Organising Bureau and delegates from the localities; 2) the state of affairs in the Party; 3) the state of affairs abroad and attitude to the various trends; 4) organisational matters; 5) the tasks of work abroad; 6) attitude to the conference; 7) other matters. The meeting declared the final break-away of the Golos and Vperyod supporters from the Party, their complete bankruptcy, and approved the measures of the June meeting of the C.C. members on convening a Party conference. The meeting adopted the resolution motioned by Lenin on support for the Russian Organising Commission and the conference it was trying to call, and resolved to set up the R.S.D.L.P. Organisation Abroad (with local sections) on the basis of conducting a true Party line, without allowing any NOTES 543

agreements with the liquidators; it also elected the Committee of the Organisation Abroad. The meeting united the Bolshevik groups abroad into a single organisation, approved the formation of the R.O.C. and declared that “it is the duty of every Party member to support it to the utmost”. p. 243

318 The Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. Organisation Abroad (C.O.A.) was elected at a meeting of the Bolshevik groups abroad held in Paris in December 1911. It included N. A. Semashko, M. F. Vla- dimirsky, Inessa Armand and others. The work of the C.O.A. was directed by Lenin. It played an important part in rallying the Party forces and in the struggle against the Menshevik liquidators, the conciliators, the Trotskyites and other opportunists. The C.O.A. responded to all the major events in Russia and measures in directing Party work and the Russian revolutionary movement, and also helped the C.C. to publish Party literature abroad. It ceased functioning in 1917. p. 243 319 The exact date and the circumstances in which Lenin gave this report on the political situation have not been established. p. 243 320 Lidvaliad—the case of the big swindler and speculator E. Lidval and V. I. Gurko, Deputy Minister for the Interior. With Gurko’s help, Lidval concluded a deal with the government to supply 10 million poods of rye to the famine-stricken gubernias of Russia from October to December 1906. Having received a sizable advance through Gurko from the treasury, Lidval brought up less than 10 per cent of the total quantity of grain to the railway lines by mid-December 1906. This embezzlement and speculation on the famine were exposed and widely reported, forcing the tsarist government to institute legal proceedings. But apart from being removed from his post, Gurko was not punished in any way. p. 243 321 A reference to the resolution of the Fifth Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. (All-Russia Conference of 1908), “The Present Moment and the Tasks of the Party” (see K.P.S.S. v rezolutsiyakh..., Part I, pp. 195-97). p. 244 322 A reference to the explanations by Minister of Public Educa- tion L. A. Kasso in the Fourth Duma in connection with the question entered by 44 deputies on December 14 (27), 1912, over the arrest of 34 pupils of secondary schools in St. Petersburg at a meeting in Vitmer’s private school. The pupils were suspected by the secret police of belonging to an illegal circle. The question was discussed at the 12th 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th sittings of the Duma. On February 6 (19), 1913, a majority adopted a formula to proceed with the business of the Duma, recognising the Mini- ster’s explanations as being unsatisfactory. p. 244 323 The Sixth (Prague) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. was held from January 5 to 17 (18 to 30), 1912. It had the actual importance of a congress and was directed by Lenin. He gave reports 544 NOTES

on the present situation and the Party’s tasks, on the work of the International Socialist Bureau, and also spoke on other questions. Lenin drafted resolutions on all the important items of the agenda. Of tremendous theoretical and practical importance were the Conference resolutions on “Liquidationism and the Group of Liquidators” and “The Party Organisation Abroad”. The Con- ference declared that by their behaviour the liquidators had finally placed themselves outside the Party, and expelled them from the R.S.D.L.P. The Conference condemned the activity of anti-Party groups abroad: the Mensheviks supporting Golos, the Vperyod group and the Trotskyites. It recognised as absolutely necessary the existence of a single Party organisation abroad working under the supervision and direction of the Central Committee to promote the Party, and said that the groups abroad which “refuse to submit to the Russian centre of Social-Democratic work, i.e., the Central Committee, and introduce disorganisation because of their separate contacts with Russia in obviation of the Central Com- mittee, have no right to use the name of the R.S.D.L.P.” The Conference adopted a resolution on “The Character and Organisa- tional Forms of Party Work”, approved Lenin’s draft organisational Rules of the Party, endorsed the newspaper Sotsial-Demokrat as the Central Organ of the R.S.D.L.P., elected the Central Com- mittee and set up the C.C. Bureau in Russia. The Prague Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. played an outstanding part in building up the Bolshevik Party, a new type of party, and in strengthening its unity. It summed up the results of a whole historical period of the Bolshevik struggle against the Mensheviks, and by expelling the Menshevik liquidators from the Party, consolidated the Bolshevik victory; the Conference laid down the Party’s political line and tactics in the conditions of the fresh revolutionary upsurge. The Prague Conference was of great international importance. It showed the revolutionary elements of the parties in the Second International an example of resolute struggle against opportunism, taking the struggle to a complete break with the opportunists. For details about the Prague Conference see present edition, Vol. 17, pp. 451-86. p. 245 324 Lenin made the remark in connection with the proposal of a vote of thanks to the R.O.C. for the work it had done in rallying all the Party organisations in Russia and calling the Sixth (Prague) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P., and to let its representative attend the Conference with vote (see present edition, Vol. 17, p. 462). p. 245 325 The Russian Organising Commission (R.O.C.) was set up by the June 1911 meeting of the C.C. members to convene an all-Russia Party conference. It was constituted at a meeting of representatives of local Party organisations at the end of September and functioned until the opening of the Sixth (Prague) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. p. 246 NOTES 545

326 A reference to the sitting of the International Socialist Bureau in Zurich on September 23 and 24, 1911. p. 247 327 During the work of the International Socialist Congress in Copenha- gen, members of the Russian delegation, V. I. Lenin, G. V. Plekha- nov and Adolf Warski (A. S. Warszawski), representing the Polish Social-Democrats, sent a protest to the Executive of the German Social-Democratic Party over the publication in Vorwärts, its Central Organ, of L. Trotsky’s article containing slanderous attacks on the R.S.D.L.P. (for the protest, see Lenin, Fifth Russian edition of the Collected Works, Vol. 47, pp. 296-98). Lenin also came out against Trotsky’s slanderous campaign, in the newspaper Sotsial-Demokrat No. 17 of September 25 (October 8), 1910, in an article entitled “How Certain Social-Democrats Inform the International About the State of Affairs in the R.S.D.L.P.”, and in Diskussionny Listok No. 3 of April 29 (May 12), 1911, in his article “The Historical Meaning of the Inner-Party Struggle in Russia” (see present edition, Vol. 16, pp. 284-86, 374-92). p. 247 328 A reference to the walk-out from the Magdeburg Congress of the German Social-Democratic Party, held from September 18 to 24, 1910, of the Social-Democratic deputies of the Baden Landtag. The Social-Democratic group of the Baden Landtag voted for the government budget despite the decisions of earlier party congresses which prohibited Social-Democratic deputies from voting for the bourgeois government’s budget. By an overwhelming majority of 289 votes to 80, the Magdeburg Congress condemned the opportunist tactics of the Baden Social-Democrats. The latter then announced that they would reserve the right not to submit to Congress decisions. In response, the majority of the Congress adopted a special resolution immediately expelling from the Party anyone violating the Congress decision on budget voting. Before the resolution was adopted, the Baden deputies staged a walk-out. For details about the Magdeburg Congress see Lenin’s article “Two Worlds” (present edition, Vol. 16, pp. 305-13). p. 247 329 A reference to the differences between the Czech and Austrian Social-Democrats over trade union unity. At the Extraordinary Congress of Austrian Trade Unions in December 1905, the Czech Social-Democrats demanded the establishment of national trade unions with jurisdiction extending over the whole of Austria. The proposal was rejected by a vast majority, but the Czechs refused to submit to the Congress decision. In 1910, the Austrian Social-Democrats took the matter to the International Socialist Congress at Copenhagen, which rejected the separatist Czech proposal and came out unanimously for trade union unity. p. 247 330 A reference to the letter sent by the opportunist Molkenbuhr to the Executive of the German Social-Democratic Party proposing that no criticism should be made of the German Government’s colonial policy in view of the impending elections to the Reichstag. Rosa Luxemburg published the letter. p. 248 546 NOTES

331 A reference to the resolution on the organisational question adopted by the Fifth Conference of the R.S.D.L.P., which was held in Paris from December 21 to 27, 1908 (see K.P.S.S. v rezolutsiyakh..., Part I, pp. 201-03). p. 250

332 A reference to the illegal Social-Democratic Party of Germany during the period of the Anti-Socialist Law introduced by the Bismarck government in 1878 to fight the working-class and socialist movement. The law banned all organisations of the Social- Democratic Party, mass workers’ organisations and the labour press; socialist literature was confiscated, the Social-Democrats were harassed and exiled. But the Social-Democratic Party prevailed in the face of these persecutions, and reorganised its activity to meet the illegal conditions; its Central Organ, the newspaper Sozial-Demokrat, was published abroad and party congresses met regularly (1880, 1883 and 1887) outside the country; in the underground in Germany, the Social-Democratic organisations and groups were being rapidly revived under the leadership of an illegal C.C. At the same time, the party made wide use of legal opportunities to strengthen its ties with the masses, and its influence continued to grow: the number of votes it won at the Reichstag elections in 1890 was more than three times greater than in 1878. The German Social-Democrats received great assistance from Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. In 1890, the Anti- Socialist Law was abolished under pressure from the massive and ever growing working-class movement. p. 252.

333 The plan was printed in the text of an announcement issued by the Paris section of the R.S.D.L.P. Organisation Abroad. It said: Comrade Lenin will give a lecture on the “Revolutionary Upsurge of the Russian Proletariat” at Alcazar Hall 190 Avenue de Choisy on Thursday, June 13, 1912. The questions listed in the plan are dealt with in a number of Lenin’s works written in 1912, especially in his article “Revolu- tionary Upswing” (see present edition, Vol. 18, pp. 102-09). The text of the announcement was reproduced in the journal Istorichesky Arkhiv (Historical Archives) No. 2 in 1955. p. 254 334 A reference to the fusillade of unarmed workers at the Lena gold mines in Siberia on April 4 (17), 1912. News of the tragedy aroused the working class of Russia, and the country was swept by demonstrations, meetings and protest strikes. The Social-Democratic group in the Duma tabled a question to the tsarist government over the Lena fusillade. The tsarist Minister Maklakov have this brazen reply: “That’s how it was, and that’s how it will be in the future!” This intensified the indignation of the workers. Up to 300,000 workers took part in the protest strikes against the Lena fusillade, and they merged with the May Day strikes involving NOTES 547

up to 400,000 workers. Lenin wrote: “The Lena shootings led to the revolutionary temper of the masses developing into a revolutionary upswing of the masses” (see present edition, Vol. 18, p. 103). p. 254

335 The article, written in September 1912, dealt with the state of affairs in the Social-Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania, which was split. One section consisted of those who supported the Party’s Chief Executive headed by Rosa Luxem- burg and J. Tyszka—the so-called “Zarzadists”. On the whole, the Chief Executive took an internationalist stand and waged a struggle in Poland against nationalism and reformism, but followed an erroneous line on the struggle within the R.S.D.L.P., taking a conciliatory attitude to the Menshevik liquidators; it tended to detach itself from the general Party life and weakened contacts with the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee, despite the fact that the Social-Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania was an autonomous organisation within the R.S.D.L.P. In the struggle against the mistakes of the Chief Executive, there took shape an opposition represented by the so-called “Rozla- mists”, who relied on the Party’s Warsaw organisation headed by former members of the Chief Executive J. Hanecki, A. Malecki and others. Rozlamists were in close contact with the Bolsheviks and supported their action. Lenin said that in that period the Warsaw organisation was the strongest and most consistently revolutionary of all the organisations of the Polish Social-Democrats (see Lenin’s article “The Split Among the Polish Social-Democrats”, Vol. 18, pp. 479-83). The article was aimed against the erroneous line of the Chief Executive, which objectively inflicted grave harm on the unity of the working-class movement in Russia as a whole and played into the hands of the anti-Bolshevik trends in the R.S.D.L.P. While criticising the grave errors of Rosa Luxemburg and J. Tyszka, Lenin put a great value on their activity and tried to help them to take a correct stand. Lenin was known to regard Rosa Luxemburg as an outstanding leader of the Polish, German and the entire international working-class movement. He wrote later that for all her mistakes, Rosa Luxemburg was “an eagle” and that “Communists all over the world cherish her memory” (see present edition, Vol. 33, p. 210). The article was written for the Bremer Bürger-Zeitung which was under the influence of the Left-wing Social-Democrats; it was translated into German by Malecki (see Lenin, Fifth Russian edition of the Collected Works, Vol. 48, Document 72). The article was not published. p. 255

336 A reference to the charge against Karl Radek that he had committed a number of unethical acts. This was levelled by a Party court set up by the Chief Executive of the Social-Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania. By a decision of the court Radek was expelled from the ranks of the Social-Democracy of Poland and Lithuania. 548 NOTES

A commission to review the court’s decision was set up in Paris in early September 1913 on the initiative of the Bureau of the sections of the Social-Democracy of Poland and Lithuania abroad (Rozlamists). Lenin supported the review of the Radek case, for he believed that the charge against Radek was the outcome of the sharp struggle which the Chief Executive was waging against the Rozlamists. The commission worked for five months and arrived at the conclusion that there had been no ground for committing Radek to trial by a Party court and expelling him from the Party. It proposed that Radek should be considered a member of the Social-Democracy of Poland and Lithuania and of the R.S.D.L.P. p. 255 337 A reference to Martov’s libellous pamphlet Saviours or Abolition- ists> (Who Destroyed the R.S.D.L.P. and How) published by Golos Sotsial-Demokrata, Paris, 1911. p. 255 338 A reference to the resolution “The State of Affairs in the Party” adopted by the R.S.D.L.P. C.C. Plenary Meeting in January 1910 (see K.P.S.S. v rezolutsiyakh..., Part I, pp. 234-33). p. 255 339 A reference to the members of the Central Committee Bureau Abroad J. Tyszka, from the Polish Social-Democrats, M. Lieber, from the Bund, and Shvarts (Y. Elias), from the Latvian Social- Democrats. p. 258 340 A reference to the resolution “Liquidationism and the Group of Liquidators” adopted by the Sixth (Prague) All-Russia Confer- ence of the R.S.D.L.P. (see present edition, Vol. 17, pp. 480-81). p. 258 341 A reference to the Sixth (Prague) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. held from January 5 to 17 (18 to 30), 1912. See Note 323. p. 259 342 This is a reply to the article published in the German Social- Democratic newspaper Leipziger Volkszeitung on September 28, 1912, on the liquidators’ conference held in Vienna in August 1912, which formalised the anti-Party (so-called August) bloc. The article tended to mislead the German Social-Democrats, distorted the true character of the conference and championed the liquidators. The article written by Lenin and signed by the R.S.D.L.P. C.C. was printed in Leipziger Volkszeitung No. 235 of October 9, 1912, and was soon sent by Lenin to the Secretary of the International Socialist Bureau Camille Huysmans. The article, Lenin wrote, “will give you an idea of this ostensibly Social-Democratic conference” (see Fifth Russian edition of the Collected Works, Vol. 48, Document 76). Leipziger Volkszeitung—a Social-Democratic daily published from 1894 to 1933; for a number of years it was edited by Franz Mehring and Rosa Luxemburg, and was an organ of the Left- wing Social-Democrats. From 1917 to 1922, it was the organ of the NOTES 549

German “Independents”; after 1922, the organ of the Right-wing Social-Democrats. p. 260 343 Promotion groups of Social-Democratic functionaries of the open working-class movement were set up by the Menshevik liquidators from the end of 1910 to counteract the illegal Party organisations. These were small groups of intellectuals which had no ties with the working class. p. 260 344 A reference to the legal organs of the Menshevik liquidators: the journal Nasha Zarya published in St. Petersburg from 1910 to 1916, and the newspaper Nevsky Golos published from May to August 1912. p. 260 345 Luch (Ray)—a legal daily of the Menshevik liquidators published in St. Petersburg from September 16 (29), 1912, to July 5 (18), 1913. Altogether 237 issues were put out. The newspaper was mainly run on the contributions of liberals. Its ideological leaders were P. B. Axelrod, F. I. Dan, L. Martov and A. S. Martynov. On the pages of the paper, the liquidators attacked the revolutionary tactics of the Bolsheviks, preached the opportunist slogan of setting up a so-called “open party”, opposed revolutionary mass strikes by workers and tried to revise the key propositions of the Party Programme. Lenin wrote that Luch was enslaved by liberal policy and said it was an organ of the renegades. p. 261 346 The manifesto was written by Lenin in early October 1912 and was published by the R.S.D.L.P. C.C. as a separate leaflet. On October 10 (23), Lenin sent the manifesto to the Secretary of the International Socialist Bureau, Camille Huysmans, asking him to convey the text of the document to the secretaries of the Social- Democratic parties and the press. It was soon published in German in Leipziger Volkszeitung and Vorwärts, in French in the Belgian newspaper Le Peuple, and in French, German and English in the Bulletin of the International Socialist Bureau. It was also published by the Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. Organisation Abroad and as a special supplement to No. 28-29 of Sotsial-Demokrat of November 5 (18), 1912. p. 262 347 The First Balkan War (October 191?-May 1913) was fought between Turkey and the countries of the Balkan alliance—Bulgaria, Ser- bia, Montenegro and Greece. It ended in the defeat of Turkey, which under the London Peace Treaty lost almost all her Balkan possessions. The Slav regions, Macedonia and Thrace, were liberated; the Albanian people won national independence. The First Balkan War, despite the fact that the monarchy and the bourgeoisie of the Balkan countries pursued their own dynastic and plunderous aims, was on the whole progressive—it marked the liberation of the Balkan people from the Turkish yoke and dealt a blow at the survivals of the serf system. Lenin said it was “one link in the chain of world events marking the collapse of the medieval state of affairs in Asia and Eastern Europe” (see present edition, Vol. 19, p. 39). p. 262 550 NOTES

348 Golos Moskvy (Voice of Moscow)—a daily, organ of the Octo- brists, published in Moscow from 1906 to 1915. p. 264

349 Russkoye Slovo (Russian Word)—a daily published in Moscow from 1895 (the first, pilot issue appeared in 1894); its publisher was I. D. Sytin. Nominally independent, the paper upheld the interests of the Russian bourgeoisie from a moderate liberal stand. It had good news coverage and was Russia’s first paper to send its own correspondents to all the major cities of Russia and many world capitals. In November 1917, the paper was closed down for running slanderous anti-Soviet reports. From January 1918 it was published under the name of Novoye Slovo (New Word) and Nashe Slovo (Our Word), and was finally closed down in July 1918. p. 265

350 Pravda (The Truth)—a legal Bolshevik daily; the first issue was published in St. Petersburg on April 22 (May 5), 1912. The decision to start a mass working-class daily was adopted by the Sixth (Prague) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. It appeared at the time of the fresh revolutionary upsurge, when the country was swept by a wave of mass political strikes over the Lena fusillade. The paper was run on funds collected by the workers. It had a circulation of up to 40,000 copies, with some issues having a printing of 60,000. Lenin said the starting of the workers’ daily was a great historic undertaking carried out by the St. Petersburg workers. Lenin provided the ideological direction, almost daily wrote for it, and gave instructions to its editors. Among its editors and contributors at various periods were N. N. Baturin, Demyan Bedny, M. I. Kalinin, N. K. Krupskaya, S. V. Malyshev, L. R. and V. R. Menzhinsky, V. M. Molotov, V. I. Nevsky, M. S. Olminsky, N. I. Podvoisky, N. G. Poletayev, M. A. Savelyev, K. N. Samoilova, Y. M. Sverdlov, N. A. Skryp- nik, J. V. Stalin, P. I. Stu0ka, A. I. Ulyanova-Yelizarova, and K. S. Yeremeyev. The Bolshevik deputies to the Fourth Duma took an active part in the paper. Some of Maxim Gorky’s writings were published in Pravda. The paper was constantly harassed by the police; it was closed down by the tsarist government eight times, but continued to appear under other names: Rabochaya Pravda, Severnaya Pravda, Pravda Truda, Za Pravdu, Proletarskaya Pravda, Put Pravdy, Rabochy and Trudovaya Pravda. In these difficult conditions, the Bolsheviks managed to put out 636 issues in the course of over two years. On July 8 (21), 1914, the paper was closed down. It was resumed only after the bourgeois-democratic revolution in February 1917. From March 5 (18), 1917, Pravda was published as the organ of the Central Committee and the St. Petersburg Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. Two days after Lenin’s return from abroad, on April 5 (18), 1917, he became a member of the Editorial Board and took over the direction of the paper. Between July and October 1917, Pravda was harassed by the counter-revolutionary bourgeois Provisional Government and had repeatedly to change its name. It was published as Listok Pravdy, Proletary, Rabochy and NOTES 551

Rabochy Put. After the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution, in October 27 (November 9), 1917, the Party’s Central Organ resumed publication under its old name. p. 266

351 In 1608 Russia was invaded by interventionist troops under Dmitry II the Impostor. The invaders drew near Moscow and camped in the village of Tushino where the Impostor formed a government with its own Court. Some of the Russian boyars deserted alternately to the Moscow and Tushino governments in an effort to safeguard themselves in the event of the victory of either side. It was those deserters that were nicknamed “Tushino turncoat”. p. 267 352 The report was published in Le Peuple No. 325 of November 20, 1912, and was introduced with this editorial note: “Citizen Lenin, a delegate of the I.S.B., has sent to the Secretariat [of the I.S.B.— Ed.] the following report about the results of the latest Russian elections already to hand.” In 1963, Lenin’s report was reprinted in the book Correspon- dance entre Lénine et Camille Huysmans, 1905-1914. Paris. p. 267 353 The name given by Louis XVIII to the counter-revolutionary, extremely reactionary French Chamber of Deputies elected after the Bourbon restoration in August 1815. p. 268 354 Progressists—a political grouping of the Russian liberal-monarchist bourgeoisie which at the elections to the Dumas and in them tried to rally elements from the various bourgeois-landowner parties and groups under the banner of “independents”. In November 1912, they formed an independent political party with the following programme: a moderate constitution with restricted suffrage, petty reforms, a responsible ministry, i.e., government responsible to the Duma, suppression of the revolutionary movement. During the First World War, the Progressists stepped up their activity, demanding a change of military command, mobilisation of industry for the needs of the front, and a “responsible ministry” with the participation of representatives of the Russian bourgeoisie. After the bourgeois-democratic revolution in February 1917, some of the party’s leaders took part in the bourgeois Provisional Government. Following the October Socialist Revolution, the party carried on active struggle against the Soviets. Among the leaders of the Progressists were the well- known Moscow industrialists P. P. Ryabushinsky and A. I. Kono- valov, and the landowner I. N. Yefremov. At various times, the party published its political organs: the journal Moskovsky Yezhenedelnik (Moscow Weekly) and the newspapers Slovo (Word), Russkaya Molva (Russian Tidings), and Utro Rossii (Morning of Russia). p. 270

355 E. J. Jagiello—a member of the Polish Socialist Party (P.P.S.); was elected deputy to the Fourth Duma from Warsaw. The Bolshe- viks strongly opposed his admission into the Social-Democratic Duma group because he had been elected with the support of the 552 NOTES

bourgeoisie and the P.P.S. and Bund bloc. At the first vote, the group split up: six deputies (Mensheviks) voted for his admission, and six (Bolsheviks) against. With the arrival of the Irkutsk deputy the Right-wing Menshevik I. N. Mankov, the Mensheviks obtained the majority, and Jagiello was admitted to the Social-Democratic Duma group. But under the pressure of the Bolshevik deputies, his rights within the group were limited: on all internal Party matters, he had voice but no vote. p. 270

356 The meeting was held in Cracow from December 26, 1912, to January 1, 1913 (January 8 to 14, 1913). It was attended by V. I. Lenin, N. K. Krupskaya, J. V. Stalin and the Bolshevik deputies to the Fourth Duma, A. Y. Badayev, G. I. Petrovsky, N. R. Shagov, among others. The meeting was also attended by representatives of illegal Party organisations in St. Petersburg, Moscow Region, the South, the Urals and the Caucasus. It was chaired by Lenin, who gave the reports on “The Revolutionary Upswing, the Strikes and the Tasks of the Party” and “On the Attitude to Liquidationism and on Unity” (the text of the reports has not been preserved), and drafted and edited all the resolutions. He also wrote the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee’s “Notification” about the meeting (see present edition, Vol. 18, pp. 449-55). The meeting adopted decisions on the most important aspects of the labour movement: the Party’s tasks in connection with the new revolutionary upsurge and the growth of the strike movement, the build-up of the illegal organisation, the work of the Social- Democratic group in the Duma, the insurance campaign, the Party press, the national Social-Democratic organisations, the struggle against liquidationism, and the unity of the proletarian party (see present edition, Vol. 18, pp. 456-66). The decisions were very important in consolidating the Party and its unity, in extending and strengthening the Party’s ties with the broad masses of working people and in working out new forms of Party work in the conditions of a mounting working-class movement. The resolutions of the Cracow meeting were approved by the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee. p. 272 357 A reference to the six Bolsheviks in the Fourth Duma (see Note 208). p. 273 358 KKK was the code name used to mark articles for obligatory insertion in Pravda. In December 1913, the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee reaffirmed the decision: “The resolution to the effect that articles marked with the three agreed letters shall be inserted at once and without change remains in force” (Istorichesky Arkhiv No. 4, 1959, p. 42). p. 273

359 A reference to the legal theoretical Bolshevik monthly Prosveshche- niye (Enlightenment) published in St. Petersburg from Decem- ber 1911 to June 1914. It was set up on Lenin’s initiative in place of the Bolshevik journal Mysl (Thought), which had been closed down by the tsarist government. The printing reached 5,000 copies. Lenin directed its publication from Paris, and then from NOTES 553

Cracow and Poronin. On the eve of the First World War, it was closed down by the tsarist government. In the autumn of 1917 its publication was resumed, but only one (double) issue appeared. p. 273

360 The letter was written on March 2 (15), 1913, on assignment from the Cracow meeting of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee with Party functionaries, in a period of sharp struggle waged by the Bolsheviks against the liquidators. It is in reply to the proposal of the German Social-Democratic leaders to call joint conferences of Bolsheviks and liquidators for the purpose of their unification. p. 274 361 Vorwärts—a daily, the Central Organ of the German Social-Demo- cratic Party, published in Berlin from 1891 under a decision of the party’s Halle Congress as a continuation of Berliner Volksblatt, which had been published from 1884, under the name of Vorwärts. Berliner Volksblatt. On its pages, Frederick Engels carried on a struggle against every sign of opportunism. From the latter half of the 1890s, after Engels’s death, the paper fell into the hands of the party’s Right wing and regularly carried articles by opportunists. It gave a biased view of the struggle against opportunism and revisionism in the R.S.D.L.P. and supported the Economists, and, after the Party split up, the Mensheviks. During the years of reaction, the paper carried Trotsky’s slanderous articles, while refusing Lenin and other Bolsheviks the opportunity of issuing refutations and giving an objective assessment of the state of affairs in the Party. During the First World War, it took a social-chauvinist stand; after the October Socialist Revolution it conducted anti-Soviet propaganda. Published in Berlin until 1933. p. 276 362 The Transcaucasian (Caucasian) Regional Committee—the factional centre of the Caucasian Menshevik liquidators. The Committee was elected at the Fifth Congress of Social-Democratic Organisa- tions of the Transcaucasus in February 1908, which was attended by fifteen Mensheviks and one Bolshevik. The Regional Committee carried on treacherous anti-Party work. Without holding any elections and disregarding the will of the Party organisations, it appointed P. B. Axelrod, F. I. Dan and N. V. Ramishvili as delegates to the Fifth (All-Russia) Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. in 1908. This liquidationist outfit, which claimed to be representative of the workers, was in fact the mainstay of the liquidators Centre Abroad and of Trotsky. In 1812, it joined the anti-Party August bloc set up by Trotsky. p. 276 363 O.C. (Organising Committee)—the governing centre of the Menshe- viks set up at the August conference of the liquidators in 1912, it operated until the elections to the Menshevik Party’s Central Committee in August 1917. p. 276 364 P.P.S.—Polska Partia Socjalistyczna (Polish Socialist Party). P.S.D.—Social-Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania (see Notes 52 and 43). p. 277 554 NOTES

365 A reference to the newspaper Nash Put (Our Path) published from August 25 (September 7) to September 12 (25), 1913. Lenin took an active part in the paper, sending in his articles simultaneously to Pravda and Nash Put. Among the articles by Lenin published in Nash Put are: “The Russian Bourgeoisie and Rus- sian Reformism”, “The Role of Social Estates and Classes in the Liberation Movement”, “Class War in Dublin”, “A Week after the Dublin Massacre”, “Questions of Principle in Politics”, and “Harry Quelch”. Among those who contributed to Nash Put were Maxim Gorky, Demyan Bedny, M. S. Olminsky, I. I. Skvortsov-Stepanov, J. V. Stalin and the Bolshevik deputies to the Fourth Duma, A. Y. Badayev, F. N. Samoilov and N. R. Shagov. The paper enjoyed wide popularity among the workers; 395 workers’ groups made contributions to run the paper. p. 279 366 Russkaya Molva (Russian Tidings)—a daily of the bourgeois- landowner party of Progressists published in St. Petersburg from December 9 (22), 1912, to August 20 (September 2), 1913. p. 283 367 The Geneva conference of Mensheviks was held simultaneously with the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. in April 1905. In view of the small number of participants (only delegates from nine committees) the Mensheviks declared it to be a conference of Party functionaries. Its decisions showed that the Mensheviks did not set themselves the task of carrying forward the revolution. They denied the hegemony of the proletariat in the revolution and the policy of alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry. They believed the liberal bourgeoisie to be the leader in the bourgeois-democratic revolution, which was to take over after the revolution won out. The Mensheviks denied the need for a provisional revolutionary government and participation of Social-Democrats in it. In its decisions on an armed uprising, the conference failed to set out the practical tasks facing the proletariat. The Mensheviks believed that the proletarian party should not take part in preparing the uprising for fear of scaring off the bourgeoisie. The conference came out against Social-Democratic participation in a provisional revolutionary government. It did not set the task of organising revolutionary peasant committees to seize the landed estates, leaving the solution of the agrarian problem to a future Constituent Assembly. The conference decisions on the organisational question, expressed in the “organisational Rules”, dragged the Party back from the Second Congress to organisational fragmentation and clannishness. Lenin exposed the opportunist character of these decisions and subjected them to withering criticism in his article “A Third Step Back”, his work Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, and in the “Preface to the Pam- phlet Workers on the Split in the Party” (see present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 544-54, Vol. 9, pp. 15-140 and 163-68). p. 287 368 A reference to the nationalist and chauvinist stand taken by the Octobrists, Progressists and Cadets during the debate in the Fourth NOTES 555

Duma in May 1913 of the estimates for the Ministry of the Interior. For details, see present edition, Vol. 36, pp. 249-50, 251-52. p. 289

369 The legal Bolshevik Priboi Publishers was set up in St. Petersburg in early 1913 and operated under the direction of the Party’s Central Committee. It responded to various questions of the working-class movement. Emerging during the “insurance campaign” it issued many publications on workers’ social insurance. Sub- sequently, on instructions from the Party’s C.C., it devoted much attention to the issue of popular agitation and propaganda pamphlets on socio-political and Party questions. In view of the intensified persecution of the workers’ press by the tsarist government at the start of the First World War, Priboi had to cease its activity and resumed it only in March 1917. In 1918, it was integrated with Kommunist Publishers, which had been set up as a merger of several publishing houses (Volna, Zhizn i Znaniye, etc.). p. 291 370 Russkiye Vedomosti (Russian Recorder)—a newspaper published in Moscow from 1863, expressing the views of the moderate liberal intelligentsia. In the 1880s and 1880s, contributors to the paper included writers from the democratic camp (V. G. Korolenko, M. Y. Saltykov-Shchedrin and G. I. Uspensky, among others); it also carried the works of the liberal Narodniks. From 1905, the paper was the organ of the Right wing of the Cadet Party. Lenin said that the paper was a unique combination of “Right Cadetism and Narodnik overtones” (see present edition, Vol. 19, p. 135). In 1918, the newspaper was closed down along with the other counter- revolutionary newspapers. p. 294 371 A reference to B. G. Dansky (K. A. Komarovsky). He joined the R.S.D.L.P. in 1911, contributed articles to Zvezda and Pravda and took part in the insurance movement; in 1913 and 1914, he was on the Editorial Board of the Bolshevik journal Voprosy Strakho- vaniya. In order to discredit the Bolsheviks, the liquidators accused Dansky of writing for the bourgeois press. A Party commission consisting of representatives of the Editorial Boards of the newspaper Za Pravdu and the journals Prosveshcheniye and Voprosy Strakhovaniya, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour group in the Duma, and Priboi Publishers examined the facts and established that after joining the Bolshevik Party Dansky had ceased writing for the bourgeois press; accordingly, it declared him to be an honest Party member, and the liquidators’ charges, libellous. Lenin also wrote about the case later, in the report of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee at the Brussels Conference (see present edition, Vol. 20, p. 524). p. 296 372 For reasons of secrecy this was called a summer conference but actually it was held from September 23 to October 1 (October 6 to 14), 1913, in the village of Poronin, near Cracow, where Lenin then lived. On its agenda were the following questions: 1) reports from the localities, report on the work of the Social-Democracy of Poland and Lithuania, report on the work of the C.C. elected 556 NOTES

0 at the Prague Conference; 2) the tasks of agitation at the present moment; 3) organisational question and the Party congress; 4) strike movement; 5) Party press; 6) Social-Democratic work in the Duma; 7) Social-Democratic Duma group; 8) work in legal societies; 9) national question; 10) Narodniks; 11) the forthcoming International Socialist Congress (in Vienna). Lenin directed the Conference. He delivered the opening speech, gave the report on the work of the Central Committee, the report on the national question, and on the forthcoming International Socialist Congress in Vienna. He also spoke on almost all the questions of the agenda, kept a record of speeches by delegates from local Party organisations, motioned proposals, drafted and edited resolutions. The text of the report on the work of the C.C. has not been discovered. A brief summary of some points from the report is given in A. Y. Badayev’s reminiscences. Two resolutions, written by Lenin, were adopted on the C.C. report and the reports from the localities: “The Tasks of Agita- tion in the Present Situation” and “On the Organisational Question and on the Party Congress”, which determined the Party’s tasks and the main forms of Party work in the new historical conditions. One of the main questions at the Conference was the national question, which at the time was among the most prominent in Russia’s social life. In his report on the national question, Lenin emphasised that the struggle against national oppression was indissolubly bound up with the struggle against tsarism, for freedom and democracy. The Conference, on the strength of the Party Programme, resolutely rejected the opportunist demand of the Mensheviks and the Bundists for “cultural-national autonomy” and adopted the propositions on the national question worked out by Lenin. He regarded the resolution on the national question as a declaration of the Party Programme on this issue. The Conference decided to include the quotation of a national programme on the agenda of the next Party congress. In its resolution on the Social-Democratic Duma group, the Conference demanded equality for the Bolshevik and the Menshevik sections and resolutely condemned the actions of the Menshevik section, which made use of its chance majority of one vote and was violating the elementary rights of the Bolshevik deputies, who represented the vast majority of Russia’s workers. On instructions from Lenin and the C.C. of the Bolshevik Party, the Bolshe- vik deputies left the joint Social-Democratic group in the Duma in October 1913 and set up their own Bolshevik group (the Rus- sian Social-Democratic Labour group). In his report on the International Socialist Congress, which was to be held in Vienna in 1914, Lenin proposed that as many delegates as possible should be sent from the illegal and legal organisations, for it was intended to hold a Party congress simultaneously with the International Socialist Congress. Lenin delivered the summing-up speech. In view of the importance of the questions discussed and the decisions adopted, the Poronin Conference had the significance of a Party conference. NOTES 557

The minutes of the Conference have not been found. The announcement of the Conference and the resolutions it adopted were published in a separate pamphlet abroad as a Central Committee publication (Izveshcheniye i rezolutsii letnego 1913 goda soveshcha- niya Tsentralnogo Komiteta R.S.D.R.P. s partiinymi rabotnikami) (Announcement and Resolutions of the Conference held by the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. and Party functionaries in the Summer of 1913). For reasons of secrecy, some of the resolutions were published in part: point 6 of the resolution on the strike movement and points 1-5 on the Party press were omitted. The full text of the resolutions was printed in an illegal hectographed publication. There are police department records of the Conference, of which the details were supplied by the provocateurs Malinovsky and Lobov. About the Conference see present edition, Vol. 19, pp. 417-31. Lenin sent an outline of the report to be made in the localities to St. Petersburg on November 29 (December 12), 1913. The outline was drawn up for the Bolshevik deputies of the Fourth Duma, as a guide for their reports about the Conference to be made to local Party workers during the Christmas recess. p. 297

373 Voprosy Strakhovaniya (Problems of Insurance)—a legal Bolshevik journal Published in St. Petersburg from October 1913 to March 1918 with interruptions. It waged a struggle not only for workers’ insurance but also for Bolshevik “uncurtailed slogans”—an eight- hour working day, confiscation of landed estates and a democratic republic. Among those who took part in the journal were prominent leaders of the insurance campaign, the Bolsheviks N. A. Skrypnik, P. I. Stu0ka, A. N. Vinokurov and N. M. Shvernik. p. 298

374 The December session of the International Socialist Bureau was held in London on December 13 and 14, 1913, and discussed the unification of the British socialist and labour parties, the Vienna Congress, Russian affairs, etc. The question of uniting the Social- Democratic Party in Russia was brought up for debate just before the session closed. In view of the late hour, the question was not discussed in detail, and the Bureau confined itself to adopting a resolution motioned by Kautsky on behalf of the German delegation. It authorised the Executive Committee of the I.S.B. to call a conference of representatives of “all the factions of the working-class movement in Russia, including Russian Poland, who accept the Party Programme or whose programmes are in accord with the Social-Democratic Programme, for an exchange of opinion (Aussprache) over the issues on which they are divided”. Motivating the resolution, Kautsky said on December 1 (14) that the old Social-Democratic Party in Russia was dead. It was necessary to revive it, relying on the Russian workers’ desire for unity. In his article “A Good Resolution and a Bad Speech”, Lenin analysed the content of the resolution and said Kautsky’s speech was a monstrous one (see present edition, Vol. 19, pp. 528-30). Writing to Inessa Armand of the issue of Vorwärts which carried 558 NOTES

Kautsky’s statement, Lenin said: “You should get hold of it ... and organise a protest campaign. We are for an exchange of opinion, for the resolution of the I.S.B.—this NB—but we are absolutely against Kautsky’s scoundrelly phrase. He should be beaten unmercifully for this” (present edition, Vol. 35, p. 130). In a letter to the Bolshevik section in Paris, Lenin wrote: “It is most desirable that the section should adopt a slashing resolution against Kautsky (calling his statement about the Party’s death shameless, brazen, monstrous, ignorant)” (Fifth Russian edition of the Collected Works, Vol. 48, p. 254). The same sitting of the I.S.B. on December 1 (14) heard Plekha- nov’s letter saying that the split in the Duma group, which had taken place through the fault of the liquidators, was a blow at the unity of the labour movement and led him to resign as the representative of the whole Party in the I.S.B. His place on the I.S.B. was taken by P. B. Axelrod, a representative of the liquidationist Organising Committee. At the conference held in Brussels in July 1914, under the I.S.B. decision, the leaders of the Second International, on the pretext of “reconciling” the Bolsheviks and the liquidators, demanded that the Bolsheviks should stop criticising the latter. The Bolshe- viks refused to do so and continued their relentless struggle against the liquidators, who were enemies of the labour movement. p. 299

375 Lenin wrote the article in connection with the All-Russia Congress on Public Education which was to be held in St. Petersburg during the winter holidays at the end of December 1913. The Bolsheviks wanted to use the Congress as a legal opportunity for spreading Bolshevik ideas and revolutionary demands. The article is closely connected with Lenin’s “The Question of Ministry of Education Policy” (see present edition, Vol. 19, pp. 137-46). p. 300

376 The question of the Vienna congress was discussed by the Interna- tional Socialist Bureau in December 1913. It was decided to call the Congress in August 1914, timing it to coincide with the celebra- tions of the 50th anniversary of the First International. The following questions were entered on its agenda: 1) high cost of living; 2) imperialism and the struggle against militarism, which included as subquestions: a) the Eastern question; b) compulsory courts of arbitration between nations and c) United States of Europe; 3) alcoholism; 4) unemployment; 5) condition of political prisoners and exiles in Russia; and 6) miscellaneous. No country was to have a delegation numbering more than six times the number of its votes; hence, Russia, with 20 votes, could have no more than 120 delegates for both subsections of the Social-Democrats and the Left Narodniks and the trade unions together. The question of the International Socialist Congress in Vienna was discussed at the Poronin Conference of the C.C. with Party functionaries. Lenin, reporting on the question, proposed that all measures should be taken to have Social-Democratic workers in a majority as delegates to the Vienna Congress. By the end of July 1914, the elections to the International Socialist Congress NOTES 559

were almost completed, but the outbreak of the world war prevented the Congress from being held. p. 305 377 Novaya Rabochaya Gazeta (New Workers’ Newspaper)—a daily of the Menshevik liquidators published in St. Petersburg in place of Zhivaya Zhizn (Living Life) from August 8 (21), 1913, to January 23 (February 5), 1914. Lenin repeatedly called it “New Liqui- dators’ Newspaper”. p. 306 378 A reference to the article by I. Vetrov (M. A. Savelyev), “The International and the Question of Unity”, published in No. 1 of the newspaper Proletarskaya Pravda (Proletarian Truth) of December 7 (20), 1913, which said: “In conclusion, we feel bound to point out the lie of the liquidators, who insist that in denying the Six special representation, the Bureau allegedly condemned the principle of ‘federation’, put forward by the six workers’ deputies in the Social-Democratic group. The demand for special representation for the Six was not at all presented to the Bureau for purely formal reasons; this shows that N.R.G.’s statements to the effect that the Bureau had issued a condemnation of the Six is part of the dishonest lying of the liquidators in their continued efforts to dim the consciousness of the working class.” p. 306 379 The theses were apparently written by Lenin after his lecture in Paris on January 10 (23), 1914 (see Lenin Miscellany XXX, pp. 51-57). The inscription on the cover of the “National Question III” notebook is an indication that Lenin repeated his Paris lecture at Liége on February 2, 1914. p. 313 380 Lenin analyses Kautsky’s pamphlet Nationalität und Interna- tionalität (Nationality and Internationality) in his work The Right of Nations to Self-Determination (see present edition, Vol. 20, pp. 397-99). p. 314 381 See Lenin’s extract from the book Der Briefwechsel zwischen Fr. Engels u. K. Marx, Bd. IV, Stuttgart, 1913, S. 292, in Lenin Miscellany XVII, p. 291 (cf. Marx’s letter to Engels, written on July 5, 1870). p. 319 382 At the third sitting of the Programme Committee of the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., the delegate of the Social-Democracy of Poland and Lithuania motioned the adoption of the item on guarantees for “freedom of cultural development of all nations making up the state” (see Lenin’s note of it in Lenin Miscellany VI, p. 105). p. 319

383 Diaspora (Gk. for dispersal)—the Jews living outside Judea. In the early 6th century B.C., there were Jewish communities in Egypt, Babylon and other countries of the Mediterranean. From the 3rd century B.C., the Diaspora grew rapidly, so that in the 1st century B.C., their number came to 4.5 million. In the Roman Empire, the Jews lived in communities, sometimes forming public-law corporations (as in Alexandria), or private religious societies (as in Rome). On the one hand, the Jews of the Diaspora success- fully conducted the propaganda of Judaism, and on the other, they 560 NOTES

were gradually losing their national traits and language. p. 322 384 “Federation of the worst type” was the term used in the decisions of the Prague Party Conference of 1912 to characterise the relations with non-Russian national Social-Democratic organisations in the R.S.D.L.P. after the Fourth (Unity) Congress, when the “non-Russians” worked “in total isolation from Russian organisations”, which had an extremely negative effect on the whole work of the R.S.D.L.P. While the Social-Democratic organisations of Poland and Lithuania, the Latvian Territory and the Bund were formally part of the R.S.D.L.P., the actually held themselves aloof. Their representatives did not take part in the direction of Party work throughout Russia, and promoted, directly or indirectly, the anti-Party activity of the liquidators (see present edition, Vol. 17, pp. 464-65, and Vol. 18, pp. 411-12). p. 323 385 The Fourth Social-Democratic Congress of the Latvian Territory was held in Brussels from January 13 to 26 (January 26 to Feb- ruary 8), 1914. Lenin took an active part in preparing and holding the Congress. He gave a report on the attitude of the Social-Democracy of the Latvian Territory to the R.S.D.L.P. and to the split in the Duma group, and took part in conferences of Bolshevik delegates, helping them to draft resolutions. On the eve of the Congress, January 12 (25), Lenin gave a lecture for the delegates on the national question, setting out the relevant Bolshevik theory and tactics. Lenin urged the Marxists of Latvia to strengthen the Party’s real—instead of imaginary—unity and keep its ranks clean of vacillators and liquidators, who were patent traitors to the working-class cause. He made wide we of the resolutions of the Fourth Congress to fight the liquidators and Trotskyites. See his articles “The Lettish Workers and the Split in the Social-Democratic Group in the Duma”, “The ‘August’ Fiction Exposed”, “The Liquidators and the Lettish Working-Class Movement” (see present edition, Vol. 20, pp. 177-81, 182-85, 239-41) and others. Thanks to the persistent struggle against the conciliatory tendencies conducted by Lenin and the Latvian Bolsheviks at the Congress, the Latvian Social- Democrats withdrew from the August bloc, and this, Lenin said, was a “death blow” at the Trotskyite association. The minutes of the Congress have not been discovered, but it is known that they were prepared for publication by Janson- Braun and were left in Brussels. At the Central Party Archives of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the C.P.S.U. Central Committee, there are, in the Poronin-Cracow material, Lenin’s writings relating to the Congress and characterising the struggle waged by him and the Bolshevik section of the Congress against the liquidators. Among the documents is a record of the agenda in Lenin’s hand, notes on the sittings and speeches, and also a draft resolution on the attitude of the Latvian Social-Democrats to the R.S.D.L.P., an outline of the report and the summing-up speech. Of great interest are Lenin’s notes on the speeches and his commentaries. There is, for instance, a note on Braun’s speech NOTES 561

on January 15 (28), 1914. Where Braun says, in justification of his conciliatory stand, that it is “a very fine point”, Lenin writes: “That’s where it’s liable to break!” p. 324 386 A reference to the liquidators’ conference held in Vienna in August 1912; it formalised the anti-Party August bloc, which was organised by Trotsky. It was attended by representatives of the Bund, the Transcaucasian Regional Committee, the Social- Democracy of the Latvian Territory and groups of liquidators, Trotskyites and otzovists abroad (the Editorial Boards of Golos Sotsial-Demokrata and Trotsky’s Vienna Pravda, and the Vperyod group). Delegates from Russia were sent by the St. Petersburg and Moscow “initiating groups” of liquidators, the Krasnoyarsk organisation, the Sebastopol Social-Democratic Military Organi- sation, the Editorial Boards of the liquidators’ publications, Nasha Zarya and Nevsky Golos; it was also attended by a representative of the Spilka Committee Abroad. The overwhelming majority were resident abroad, were out of touch with the working class in Russia, and not connected directly with local Party work in Russia. The conference adopted anti-Party, liquidationist decisions on all questions of Social-Democratic tactics and came out against the existence of the illegal Party. The liquidators’ attempt to set up their own, Centrist party in Russia was not supported by the workers. The liquidators failed to elect a Central Committee and confined themselves to setting up an Organising Committee. The anti-Bolshevik bloc, consisting of diverse elements, which it was the main task of the conference to set up, began to fall apart before the conference was over. See Lenin’s articles “The Break-up of the ‘August’ Bloc”, “The ‘August’ Fiction Exposed”, “Disrup- tion of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for Unity” (present edition, Vol. 20, pp. 158-61, 182-85, 325-47). p. 326 387 The Resolution on Setting up an Organisational Section of the Central Committee to direct illegal Work was adopted by the C.C. at its sittings held in Cracow from April 2 to 4 (15 to 17), 1914, under Lenin’s direction and with the participation of G. I. Pet- rovsky, representing the Bolshevik Duma group, who had arrived from Russia. The C.C. examined the questions of preparing for the convocation of the next R.S.D.L.P. congress, marking Work- ers’ Press Day, work among the peasants, work in the Duma and report of the Bolshevik Duma group, the International Women’s Conference, the Vienna Congress of the Second International, preparation of leaflets for May Day, etc. In connection with the discussion of the question of setting up the Organisational Section of the Central Committee to direct illegal Work and the adoption of a resolution on this question, Lenin proposed that prominent Party workers—among them M. I. Kalinin and A. S. Kiselyov—and workers who took an active part in the insurance movement should be included in the Section. Apart from the resolution published here, there is also an outline of the agenda of the C.C. sittings worked out by Lenin. On the 562 NOTES

question of the R.S.D.L.P. C.C. report to the Vienna Congress of the Second International, the C.C. decided to “instruct the C.C. members abroad to engage in drawing up the report”. This was done by Lenin. In April-May 1914, he wrote his “Plan and Outline for a Report of the R.S.D.L.P. C.C. to the Vienna Congress of the Second International” (see Fifth Russian edition of the Collected Works, Vol. 25, pp. 441-44). p. 330 388 The Party congress was to be timed to coincide with the Interna- tional Socialist Congress in Vienna, set for August 1914. An Organ- ising Commission was set up under the Russian Collegium of the C.C. to prepare for the congress. It was also decided to set up commissions in Moscow, the Caucasus, the South and the Urals. The congress was to be preceded by organisational tours of local Party organisations by C.C. agents, and also by trips to the localities of the Bolshevik deputies to the Duma. The preparations for the congress were especially intensive in the spring and summer of 1914. The agenda and even the composition of the congress were determined. It was to discuss the following questions: reports of the C.C. and reports from the localities, the political situation, the Party’s organisational tasks, the tasks of the strike movement, the tactics of the insurance movement, some addenda to the minimum programme, the national question, the liquidators in connection with the conference under the I.S.B., participation in the bourgeois press and other urgent problems of the time. By the end of July 1914, preparations for the congress and elections to the International Socialist Congress were almost complete. Most of the delegates were elected, the instructions drawn up and the mandates collected. The technical side—secret meeting places, routes and passports—was also ready. But the outbreak of war and the wild reaction that followed worked a sharp change in the situation in the country. The closure of the frontiers cut off commun- ications with all other countries. The congress was postponed until a more favourable moment. Nor was the International Congress able to meet in these circumstances. Although the Party congress did not take place, preparation for it had a great part to play in strengthening and consolidating the Party organisations. p. 331 389 The statistical studies by I. M. Kozminykh-Lanin repeatedly drew Lenin’s attention. In August 1912, Lenin wrote two reviews on his Working Day and Working Year in Moscow Gubernia, entitled “The Working Day in the Factories of Moscow Gubernia” and “The Working Day and Working Year in Moscow Gubernia”. The first was published in Pravda, the second in Nevskaya Zvezda in August 1912 (see present edition, Vol. 18, pp. 260-61, 262-69). Lenin used the author’s statistical data in his article “The Language of Figures”, published in September 1913 in the Moscow newspaper Nash Put (see present edition, Vol. 19, pp. 358-63). In the first of the above-mentioned reviews Lenin wrote that the statistician had prepared a special work on overtime at Moscow Gubernia factories, and the article given here is a review of this latter work, which was published in 1914. p. 331 NOTES 563

390 The conference, called by the Executive Committee of the I.S.B. in accordance with the decision of the December 1913 session of the I.S.B., was held from July 16 to 18, 1914. It was attended by representatives of the R.S.D.L.P. (Bolsheviks) Central Com- mittee; the Organising Committee (Mensheviks) with its affiliated organisations (Caucasian Regional Committee and the Borba group [Trotskyites]); the Social-Democratic Duma group (Men- sheviks); Plekhanov’s Yedinstvo group; the Vperyod group; the Bund, the Social-Democracy of the Latvian Territory; the Social- Democracy of Lithuania; the Polish Social-Democrats; the Polish Social-Democratic Opposition, and the P.P.S.-Lewica. The delegation of the R.S.D.L.P. C.C. consisted of Inessa Armand (Petrova), M. F. Vladimirsky (Kamsky) and I. F. Popov (Pavlov). Lenin thoroughly prepared the delegation for the conference: he wrote a report and detailed instructions for it, provided it with the necessary material, documents and factual data which exposed the true face of Russia’s opportunists and their sponsors. From the outset there was a sharp struggle between the Bol- sheviks and the Russian and international opportunists. On Kautsky’s motion, the conference approved the following agenda: 1) Programme differences. 2) Tactical differences. 3) Organisa- tional question. Despite the fact that the conference was to be limited to an exchange of opinion, Vandervelde warned that it would adopt decisions on all three items of the agenda. The C.C. delegation, guided by Lenin’s instructions, motioned that the conference should hear the delegations’ reports and suggestions concerning the concrete conditions which each considered necessary to ensure unity. Thanks to the insistence of the Bolsheviks it was decided to depart from the adopted agenda and to go on to reports on the controversial questions and to the formulations of the concrete conditions for unity. At the centre of the conference’s work was a report of the R.S.D.L.P. C.C., prepared by Lenin and read out by Inessa Armand in French at the morning sitting of July 17. The leaders of the I.S.B. did not allow her to read out the entire report, so she had to summarise a part of it and then go on to stating the terms for unity. Intent on defending the liquidators, the I.S.B. leaders were greatly irritated at the concrete proposals of the Bolsheviks on the terms for unity. On behalf of the I.S.B., Kautsky motioned a resolution which asserted that there were no essential differences among the Russian Social-Democrats hindering their unity. He was supported by the O.C. and Plekhanov, who made fierce attacks against the C.C. delegation and Lenin. An erroneous stand was taken by Rosa Luxemburg, who joined Plekhanov, Vandervelde, Kautsky and others in urging a union of the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. Since the motioning of the resolution was outside the powers of the conference, the Bolsheviks and the Latvian Social-Democrats refused to participate in the vote on it. But a majority adopted the resolution. The Polish opposition, although it supported the Bolsheviks and the Latvian Social- Democrats at the conference, voted for the I.S.B. resolution. 564 NOTES

(See Lenin’s article “The Polish Social-Democratic Opposition at the Parting of the Ways”, present edition, Vol. 20, pp. 556-57.) The Bolsheviks, guided by Lenin, refused to abide by the decisions of the Brussels conference. The attempt on the part of the opportunist leaders of the Second International to liquidate the Bolshevik Party was a failure. In the face of the international proletariat, Lenin and the Bolsheviks exposed the true aims of the leaders of the International parading as peace-makers. At a private conference of liquidators, Trotskyites, Vperyod supporters, Plekhanovites, Bundists and representatives of the Caucasian Regional Organisation, held after the Brussels conference, these groups set up a bloc against the Bolsheviks. The Brus- sels (July Third) bloc was a hypocritical cover-up for the politically rotten positions of all its participants; the bloc’s break-up soon after showed the falsity of the policy propounded by the Russian and West-European “unifiers” of the R.S.D.L.P. p. 334

391 The item was intended for the newspaper Trudovaya Pravda. In the margin of the page on which it is written, Lenin made a note for the editors: “Set this thing in brevier, and do not print any replies to their letters, nothing at all: let them all go to their new ‘brothers by bloc’”. The item was not published as the newspaper was closed down on July 8 (21), 1914. p. 334 392 These plans reveal the content of the article “Revolution and War” which Lenin planned to write for No. 33 of the Party’s C.O., the newspaper Sotsial-Demokrat. The plans were written in July 1914 after the outbreak of war between Austria and Serbia. The revolutionary crisis coming to a head in Russia on the eve of the war was most evident in July 1914, a period Lenin compared with January 1905, pointing to the growth of a massive revolutionary movement, led by the illegal proletarian party, the growth of slogans providing ideological unity for the Party’s propaganda and agitation. The revolutionary struggle was conducted under the slogans for an eight-hour working day, confiscation of landed estates and a democratic republic. The plans show that the powerful growth of the revolutionary movement in Russia was seen by Lenin in the content of the international situation, and that in his article “Revolution and War” he intended to deal with the tasks facing the proletariat of Russia in connection with the world situation. p. 335 393 Kievskaya Mysl (Kiev Thought)—a bourgeois-democratic daily published in Kiev from 1906 to 1918. Until 1915, it had illustrated weekly supplements; from 1917, it had morning and evening editions. p. 335 394 This is written on a separate page and is marked as an insertion, but there is no indication which particular article it belongs to. It may well be a variant of the insertion to the R.S.D.L.P. C.C. manifesto “The War and the Social-Democracy of Russia”, or to a Bolshevik resolution on the war. p. 337 NOTES 565

395 A reference to the Extraordinary International Socialist Congress held at Basle on November 24 and 25, 1912. It was called to decide on the question of fighting the looming danger of an imperialist world war, a danger; that was intensified by the outbreak of the First Balkan War. The Congress was attended by 555 delegates. The R.S.D.L.P. C.C. sent 6 delegates. On the opening day, there was a massive anti-war demonstration and an international rally against war. On November 25, the Congress unanimously adopted a Mani- festo on war. It warned the nations against the threat of an impending world war, exposed the plunderous aims of the war being prepared by the imperialists, urged workers in all countries to wage a resolute struggle for peace, against the threat of war, and to “confront capitalist imperialism with the might of the international solidarity of the proletariat”. In the event of an imperialist war, the Manifesto advised socialists to use the economic and political crisis caused by the war to struggle for a socialist revolution. The leaders of the Second International (Kautsky, Vandervelde and others) voted for the Manifesto, but with the outbreak of the world war they forgot all about the Basle Manifesto and the other decisions of international socialist congresses on the struggle against war, and sided with their imperialist governments. p. 337 396 Lenin began work on the pamphlet soon after his arrival in Berne. He collected extensive material but the pamphlet was not written. He used some of the preparatory material in his lectures, articles published in Sotsial-Demokrat, and in the pamphlet Socialism and War. This is the fullest plan of the pamphlet, all the preparatory material being given in Lenin Miscellany XIV, pp. 14-123. p. 337 397 A reference to Victor Adler’s speech in the International Socialist Bureau in Brussels on July 29, 1914. Lenin deals with it in his “Dead Chauvinism and Living Socialism” (see present edition, Vol. 21, pp. 94-101). p. 338 398 A reference to the book by Jean Jaurès, L’organisation socialiste de la France. L’Armée nouvelle (Socialist Organisation in France. New Arm), published in Paris in 1911. p. 338 399 A reference to Hermann Wendel’s article “Jaurès” published in Die Neue Zeit No. 19 of August 21, 1914. p. 338 400 A quotation from Karl Kautsky’s article “Die Sozialdemokratie im Krieg” (Social-Democracy in Wartime) published in No. 1 of Die Neue Zeit of October 2, 1914. Lenin criticised the article in “Dead Chauvinism and Living Socialism” (see present edition Vol. 21, pp. 94-101). p. 339 401 A reference to Hermann Wendel’s article “Europa in Feuersgefahr” (Europe Threatened with Conflagration), carried in No. 18 of Die Neue Zeit of July 31, 1914. There are extracts from the article with Lenin’s remarks in Lenin Miscellany XIV, pp. 47-49. p. 339 402 A reference to the article “Ultimatum” published in No. 200 566 NOTES

of Vorwärts on July 25, 1914; the note “Verdechtige Tiranentöter!” (Suspicious Tyrant Killers!) published in the supplement to No. 174 of Leipziger Volkszeitung on July 31, 1914, and the article “Der Kampf gegen den Zarismus” (The Struggle Against Tsarism) published in No. 209 of Vorwärts on August 3, 1914. p. 339 403 A reference to R. Fischer’s article “Vandalen” (Vandals) published in No. 206 of Volksrecht on September 5, 1914. Lenin’s extracts from the article are in Lenin Miscellany XIV, p. 61. p. 339 404 Upon the outbreak of war, some members of the Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. Organisations Abroad, which had its seat in Paris, and some members of the Bolshevik section in Paris—N. I. Sapozh- kov (Kuznetsov) and A. V. Britman (Antonov), among others— joined the Mensheviks and S.R.s in adopting a declaration on behalf of “Russian republicans”, which they published in the French press, and went to the front. L’Humanité also carried a statement by Polish Social-Democratic volunteers. p. 339 405 No. 9 of Golos on September 22, 1914, carried the text of a social- chauvinist declaration by Polish socialists signed by Leder, Kon, Sehnenbaum and others. p. 339 406 Sovremennoye Slovo (Contemporary Word)—a daily published by the Cadets in St. Petersburg from 1907 to 1918. The reference here is to Lenin’s extracts from the item “G. V. Plekhanov about the War” in No. 2374 of Sovremennoye Slovo on August 23 (Septem- ber 5), 1914 (see Lenin Miscellany XIV, p. 114). p. 339 407 A reference to the “Press Review” section in No. 3 of Golos on Sep- tember 15, 1914, containing an extract from Ghesquière’s social- chauvinist article “Notre devoir” (Our Duty) published in No. 3802 of L’Humanité on September 14, 1914. It tried to justify the social-chauvinist policy of the leadership of the French Social- ist Party in the imperialist war and its abandonment of the class struggle, and stated that the French socialists would do their socialist duty when the war was over. The Golos editors appended an editorial note confirming that Vorwärts and G. V. Plekhanov took the same attitude. p. 339 408 A reference to the article by Y. Smirnov (Gurevich), “The War and European Democracy”, published in No. 202 of Russkiye Vedo- mosti on September 3 (16), 1914, and P. Maslov’s letter to the editor of the paper, published under the caption “The War and Trade Agreements” in No. 207 of the paper on September 10 (23), 1914. p. 339 409 A reference to Edouard Vaillant’s article “Formalistes doctrinaires” (Doctrinaire Formalists), written in reply to the letters he received from socialists criticising his social-chauvinist stand. It was run as an editorial in No. 3827 of L’Humanité on October 9, 1914. Lenin’s extracts from it are in Lenin Miscellany XIV, p. 97. p. 340

410 A reference to Compère-Morel’s article “Les commissaires à la NOTES 567

nation” (People’s Commissars) published in No. 3788 of L’Huma- nité on August 31, 1914. Lenin’s extracts from the article are in Lenin Miscellany XIV, p. 67. p. 340 411 A reference to Gustave Hervé’s articles vindicating the alliance between republican France and tsarist Russia. He said that France could not do without an alliance with the tsar in the War, and that tsarism was allegedly improving under the influence of democratic Britain and democratic Italy. p. 340 412 H. M. Hyndman had come out in open defence of imperialism even before the war, and had been sharply criticised by the German Social-Democrats and their organ Die Neue Zeit. p. 340 413 A reference to the social-chauvinist declaration issued by the Social-Democratic group and read out by the Socialist H. Haase in the Reichstag on August 4, 1914, during the voting of the war credits. p. 340 414 A reference to Eduard Bernstein’s article “Abrechnung mit Russ- land” (Squaring Accounts with Russia) published in No. 232 of Vorwärts on August 26, 1914. Quoting Engels’s Savoyen, Nizza und der Rhein (Savoy, Nice and the Rhine), which spoke of the threat of a Franco-Russian alliance for Germany, out of context, Bernstein tried to justify the opportunist policy of the German Social-Democratic leaders in the imperialist war. Lenin’s extracts from Engels’s work are in Lenin Miscellany XIV, pp. 41-43. p. 340

415 A reference to Engels’s “Der Sozialismus in Deutschland” (Social- ism in Germany) published in No. 19 of Die Neue Zeit, Vol. 1, 1891-92, which the German social-chauvinists tried to use to vin- dicate their opportunist stand in the imperialist war. p. 340

416 A reference to Franz Mehring’s protest, which exposed the attempts on the part of German social-chauvinists to justify their opportunist policy in the imperialist war by references to Engels. p. 340

417 No. 211 of Hamburger Echo on September 10, 1914, carried an article “Eine notwendige Erklärung” (A Necessary Explana- tion), which distorted Engels’s article “Der Sozialismus in Deutsch- land” in order to justify the social-chauvinist stand of the German Social-Democratic leadership. For Lenin’s extracts from the newspaper see Lenin Miscellany XIV, p. 67. No. 249 of Vorwärts on September 12, 1914, carried an article “Die Auffassung der italienischen Sozialisten” (The Standpoint of the Italian Socialists). p. 340 418 A reference to the article by the German social-chauvinist R. Fischer, “Vandalen” (Vandals), which was published in No. 206 of Volksrecht on September 5, 1914, and the reply to him—“Letter from a German Socialist”, which was apparently intended for publication in Berner Tagwacht. There are extracts from the letter made by Lenin, with this note in the margin: “((pp. 1-7)) (typewritten, to the editors of Berner Tagwacht)” (see Lenin Miscellany XIV, 568 NOTES

pp. 61-63). But the letter was not published in the newspaper. Extracts from it were published in a leading article “Die Sozial- demokratie und der Krieg” (Social-Democracy and the War) in Grütlianer Nos. 213 and 214 on September 13 and 14, 1914. p. 340 419 A quotation from an article by Joseph Bloch, “Der Krieg und Sozialdemokratie” (The War and Social-Democracy), which was published in No. 16 of Sozialistische Monatshefte. p. 340 420 No. 12 of Golos on September 25, 1914, carried an item “Press Review” containing a summary of Karl Liebknecht’s letter, which was published in Bremer Bürger-Zeitung and dealt with the Social-Democratic voting of the war credits in the Reichstag. p. 340 421 A reference to the protest issued by the Left-wing Social-Democrats and published in No. 214 of the Bremer Bürger-Zeitung on September 14, 1914, and to the article “Parteipflichten” (Party Duties) published in the Social-Democratic paper Volksblatt No. 220 of September 19, 1914. They voiced protests against the social-chauvinist policy of the German Social-Democratic leadership, declared that not all Social-Democrats shared the leadership’s opinion, and emphasised a desire for international solidarity. Bremer Bürger-Zeitung—a Social-Democratic daily published in Bremen from 1890 to 1919; until 1916 it was under the influence of Bremen Left-wing Social-Democrats, but then passed into the hands of social-chauvinists. p. 341 422 A reference to the stand taken by the German Social-Democratic newspaper Volksblatt, which was published in Halle. It criticised the social-chauvinist stand of the German Social-Democratic leadership and urged international solidarity. p. 341 423 A reference to the article “Die Zertrümmerte Internationale” (Destroyed International) published in No. 211 of Bremer Bürger- Zeitung on September 10, 1914. Lenin’s extracts from the newspaper are in Lenin Miscellany XIV, p. 83. p. 341 424 Volksrecht—a daily, the organ of the Social-Democratic Party of Switzerland, published in Zurich since 1898. During the First World War (1914-18), the paper carried articles by Left-wing Social-Democrats. It published Lenin’s articles: “Twelve Brief Theses on H. Greulich’s Defence of Fatherland”, “The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party in the Russian Revolu- tion”, “Tricks of the Republican Chauvinists” and others. Lenin is referring to the article “Zwei Internationalen” (Two Internationals) published in No. 211 of Volksrecht on September 11, 1914. Lenin’s extracts from the article are in Lenin Miscellany XIV, p. 58. p. 341

425 A reference to the manifesto issued by the French and Belgian delegations in the I.S.B. to the German people. It was carried in No. 3794 of L’Humanité on September 6, 1914, and accused the German Government of aggressive designs, and the German soldiers, of atrocities on occupied territory. The Executive of the NOTES 569

German Social-Democratic Party published a protest against the manifesto in No. 247 of Vorwärts on September 10. There followed a press polemic between the French and German social-chauvinists, with both sides trying to justify their government’s part in the war and putting the blame on the other governments. p. 341 426 A reference to L. Martov’s letter to G. Hervé, which was published in No. 12 of Golos on September 25, 1914. p. 341 427 A reference to Ivan Krylov’s fable of the same name, which describes a cuckoo and a cock singing each other’s praises. p. 341 428 A reference to the trip by a leader of the German Social-Democratic Party, the rabid social-chauvinist A. Südekum, to Italy, on assignment from the Party’s Executive. A record of his talk with the Italian socialists was printed in Avanti!, and then reprinted in various socialist newspapers. In Russian, it appeared in the Men- shevik Nasha Zarya Nos. 7-8-9 for 1914. p. 341 429 A reference to the conference of Left-wing Social-Democrats held on Lenin’s initiative during the Copenhagen Congress. In his plan for the pamphlet The European War and European Socialism, Lenin gives a list of those who attended: Jules Guesde and Charles Rappoport from France; Louis de Brouckère from Belgium; Rosa Luxemburg and Emanuel Wurm from Germany; Julian Marchlewski (Karski) from Poland; Pablo Iglesias from Spain; Adolf Braun from Austria; Lenin, Plekhanov and others from Russia (see Lenin Miscellany XIV, p. 22). p. 341 430 The resolution “The Tasks of Revolutionary Social-Democracy in the European War”, adopted on Lenin’s report on the attitude to the war made at a Bolshevik conference in Berne on Septem- ber 6, 1914. It is known as “Theses on War”, and was the first document to define the attitude of the Bolshevik Party and international revolutionary Social-Democracy to the imperialist world war. Lenin’s theses were discussed in detail and adopted at the resolution of the conference. Signed “Group of Social-Democrats, Members of the R.S.D.L.P.”, they were circulated to various Bolshevik sections abroad. For reasons of secrecy, Lenin made the following inscription on a copy in Krupskaya’s hand: “Copy of the manifesto issued in Denmark”. p. 341 431 Charles Philips Trevelyan, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, said in an open letter to his electors that in the imperialist war the interests of one’s nation were paramount and that these interests demanded peace. p. 342

432 No. 254 of Frankfurter Zeitung on September 13, 1914, carried an article by Frank Oppenheimer, “Neue Rom und neue Karfageno” (The New Rome and the New Carthage). Lenin’s extracts from the article are in Lenin Miscellany XIV, p. 85. Frankfurter Zeitung—a daily, organ of big German stockbrok- ers, published in Frankfort on the Main from 1856 to 1943; resumed publication in 1949 under the name Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung; a mouthpiece of the West-German monopolists. p. 342 570 NOTES

433 Russkoye Znamya (Russian Banner)—a Black-Hundred newspaper, organ of the Union of the Russian People, published in St. Petersburg from 1905 to 1917. Here Lenin refers to an editorial in its No. 105 of August 30, 1914, which spoke of the leaflets of the St. Petersburg Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. p. 342 434 A reference to Karl Kautsky’s article “Prospects for Peace”, extracts from which were published in Golos Nos. 18 and 19 on October 2 and 3, 1914. p. 342 435 A reference to an item “W. C. Modell 70” carried in No. 227 of Vorwärts on August 21, 1914. p. 342 436 A possible reference to the 42-cm. guns made in Germany by Krupp and first used in the war of 1914-18. p. 343 437 Kreuz-Zeitung—a popular name for an ultra-reactionary German daily, Neue Preussische Zeitung, which had a cross on its masthead. The paper was the organ of German conservatives and was published in Berlin from 1848 to 1939. From 1911 on it was called Neue Preuss- ische (Kreuz) Zeitung, and from 1932—Kreuz-Zeitung. p. 343 438 A reference to “Press Review” in No. 14 of Golos on September 27, 1914, which commented on the stand of the English socialists and gave extracts from articles by Keir Hardie and MacDonald. It said that MacDonald “revealed too much pessimism in assessing the consequences of the current war”. p. 343 439 A reference to the article “Silence, Eunuchs!” published as an editorial in No. 21 of Golos on October 6, 1914, which said that the German Social-Democrats would have compromised themselves if, in the conditions of Germany pressed by the Russian troops, they were to “issue a call for a revolutionary Commune”, and that this would have isolated them from the broad masses. p. 344

440 A reference to the appeal “From Writers, Artists and Actors” written in the spirit of bourgeois patriotism and justification of tsarist Russia’s war against Germany. It was signed by the honorary Academicians and well-known artists A. Vasnetsov, V. Vasnetsov and K. Korovin, the sculptor S. Merkurov, F. Chaliapin and other prominent actors of Moscow theatres, the writers Maxim Gorky A. Serafimovich, Skitalets and others, the editors of magazines P. Struve, N. Mikhailov, D. Tikhomirov, etc. The appeal was published in No. 223 of Russkoye Slovo on Sep- tember 28 (October 11), 1914. p. 344

441 Dzvin (The Bell)—a legal nationalist monthly of Menshevik make- up, published in Ukrainian in Kiev from January 1913 to mid-1914. There were 18 issues. Among those who took part in the magazine were V. Vinnichenko, L. Yurkevich (Rybalka), S. Petlyura G. Alexinsky, P. Axelrod and L. Trotsky. The magazine ceased publication at the beginning of the First World War. The article “The Ukraine and the War” was written by V. Levin- sky. p. 345 NOTES 571

442 Alliance for the Liberation of the Ukraine—a bourgeois nationalist organisation set up by a group of Ukrainian bourgeois nationalists in 1914, after the start of the First World War. Expecting the defeat of tsarist Russia in the war, the alliance set itself the task of securing Ukraine’s secession from Russia and establishing a bourgeois and landowner autocratic Ukrainian state under the German protectorate. p. 345

443 The item was raised at the conference of the R.S.D.L.P. sections abroad, at Berne, in connection with the attempt on the part of some R.S.D.L.P. organisations abroad (the Baugy group, the Paris section) to start publication of local newspapers separately from the Central Organ. In the conditions of wartime and in view of the great scarcity of funds and literary forces, the need for closer contacts between Bolsheviks and joint discussion of important questions, Lenin considered it inappropriate to publish small local papers, and motioned an amendment to point 3 of the draft resolution on the question, which was put up for debate at the conference. Lenin’s motion was carried and the conference adopted point 3 in his wording (see K.P.S.S. v rezolutsiyakh..., Part I, p. 331). p. 346

444 The International Socialist Women’s Conference was held at Berne from March 26 to 28, 1915. It was called on the initiative of the magazine Rabotnitsa’s organisation abroad with the close participation of Clara Zetkin, who was at the time Chairman of the Interna- tional Socialist Women’s Bureau. All the preparatory work for the conference was carried out by I. F. Armand, N. K. Krupskaya and others under Lenin’s direction. The conference was attended by 29 delegates from women’s organisations of Britain, Germany Holland, France, Poland, Russia and Switzerland. The seven delegates from Russia included four from the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee (Armand, Krupskaya and others) and three from the O.C. Most of the delegates to the conference were under the influence of the Centrists, which is why instead of discussing general socialist tasks in connection with the war, the conference confined its work to discussing Clara Zetkin’s report “On Socialist Women’s International Action for Peace”. The resolution on this question was worked out by Clara Zetkin with the participation of delegates from Britain and Holland and was of a Centrist character. The representatives of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee motioned a draft resolution written by Lenin, which indicated to the socialist women the revolutionary way of fighting against the war and international opportunism. Inessa Armand spoke for the draft at the conference, which however adopted the resolution drawn up by Clara Zetkin. Lenin assessed the conference as an attempt to restore international ties and tried to use it for the purpose of rallying the internationalist elements on a revolutionary platform. But, as he pointed out later, this and other conferences of internationalists held at the time, while being inspired by the best intentions, did not lay down a militant internationalist line..., “they confined themselves 572 NOTES

to repeating the old resolutions” and “at best were marking time” (see present edition, Vol. 21, p. 325). The material on the International Socialist Women’s Conference was published in a Supplement to Sotsial-Demokrat No. 42, on June 1, 1915. p. 346

445 The First International Socialist Conference at Zimmerwald (Swit- zerland) was held from September 5 to 8, 1915. It was attended by 38 delegates from 11 European countries. Most delegates took a Centrist stand. It discussed the following questions: 1) reports by representatives of the various countries; 2) joint declaration by representatives of Germany and France; 3) proposal by the Zimmerwald Left on the adoption of a resolution of principle; 4) adoption of a manifesto; 5) elections to the International Socialist Committee; 6) adoption of a resolution voicing sympathy for the victims of the war and the persecuted. Lenin took an active part in the work of the Conference: he made speeches, sent notes to delegates during the sittings and spoke to them during the recesses. Before the Conference, he carried out extensive preparatory work in rallying the Left wing against the social-chauvinists and the Centrists. On the eve of the Zimmer- wald Conference, between September 2 and 4, there was a meeting of Russian and Polish delegates to discuss a “Draft Resolution Proposed by the Left Wing at Zimmerwald” which was written by Lenin, and a draft resolution motioned by Karl Radek which Lenin had criticised before the meeting. After the discussion it was decided to motion at the Zimmerwald Conference Radek’s draft corrected on the basis of Lenin’s remarks. The draft resolution and the draft manifesto written by Lenin condemned social- chauvinism and Centrism, raised the question of rejecting the slogans: “defend your country” in the imperialist war and a “civil peace”, and pointed to the need for the propaganda of revolutionary action. A majority at the Conference rejected the draft resolution on the war and the tasks of Social-Democrats and the draft manifesto motioned by the Left wing. However, the appeal “To the Proletar- ians of Europe” adopted by the Conference contained, thanks to Lenin’s insistence, a number of basic propositions of revolutionary Marxism. Lenin’s “Draft Resolution Proposed by the Left Wing at Zim- merwald”, his articles “The First Step” and “Revolutionary Marx- ists at the International Socialist Conference of September 5-8, 1915”, in which Lenin assesses the Zimmerwald Conference, are published in Vol. 21 of the present edition, pp. 345-48, 383-88, 389-93. The proceeding of the Zimmerwald and the Kienthal conferences from which Lenin’s speeches published in this volume have been taken, were received by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the C.P.S.U. Central Committee from the International Insti- tute of Social History at Amsterdam in 1964. Some minor remarks by Lenin are not included in the volume. p. 349 NOTES 573

446 These are theses for a report on the character of the First World War and the tactics of revolutionary internationalists, which Lenin gave at a private meeting of Left-wing Social-Democratic delegates at the Zimmerwald Conference on September 4, 1915, before the Conference opened. It was also attended by some other delegates. The meeting adopted the draft manifesto and the draft resolution motioned by the Left wing at the Zimmerwald Conference. p. 351

447 A reference to the Vorkonferenz, a preliminary conference, on the question of convening an international socialist conference, held at Berne on July 11, 1915. It was called on the initiative of the Italian and Swiss socialists, and was attended by representatives of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee, the Regional Executive of the Polish Social-Democratic Party, the P.P.S.-Lewica and the O.C. of the Mensheviks. Most of those attending were Centrists. The main question was the composition of the forthcoming First International Socialist Conference. The Kautskian majority of the Vorkonferenz tried to get the Centrists led by Kautsky and even avowed social-chauvinists, Troelstra and Branting, to attend the conference. The representative of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee motioned a proposal that invitation to attend the next preliminary conference should be sent out to representatives of real Left-wingers in the international working-class movement, who had by then separated themselves from the official parties in most countries (the Dutch Left, the Bulgarian Tesnyaki, the Left-wing opposition in the Swedish and the Norwegian Social- Democratic parties, the group of German Left-wingers—Inter- national Socialists of Germany, the Polish Social-Democrats [opposition] and the Latvian Social-Democrats). But the Kautskian majority at the conference rejected the proposal. The preliminary conference adopted a decision to call the second Vorkonferenz which was to take the final decision on the conference. But it was not held, the Zimmerwald Conference being convened instead. p. 351

448 In the discussion of the draft manifesto and the draft resolution on the war and the tasks of Social-Democrats, motioned on behalf of the Zimmerwald Left by Karl Radek, a sharp struggle flared up at the Conference between the revolutionary internationalists led by Lenin and the Kautskian majority led by the German Social- Democrat G. Ledebour. Opposing these documents, Ledebour and the Swiss Social-Democrat R. Grimm declared that, in putting forward concrete demands for revolutionary action, the draft manifesto and resolution motioned by the Left gave away the tactical measures of revolutionary Social-Democracy to the enemy. They said that people who signed these documents and spread their ideas in the belligerent countries could be subjected to reprisals. p. 353

449 An apparent reference to the Communist Manifesto (see Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. I, Moscow, 1962, pp. 21-65). p. 354 574 NOTES

450 The Tribunists—members of the Social-Democratic Party of Hol- land, whose organ was the newspaper De Tribune. Their leaders were D. Wijnkoop, H. Gorter, A. Pannekoek and Henriette Roland-Holst. They were not consistent revolutionaries but represented the Left wing of the labour movement in Holland, and during the First World War mainly took an internationalist stand. In 1918, they set up the Communist Party of Holland. p. 354

451 A reference to Karl Liebknecht’s letter of September 2, 1915, to the International Socialist Conference at Zimmerwald. He could not take part in the Conference, because he had been drafted into the German army in early 1915. In his letter he opposed “civil peace” and called for a civil war against the bourgeoisie, for the international solidarity of socialists of all the belligerent countries, for a struggle against the imperialist war and a break with the social-chauvinists. p. 354 452 In his speech, the Italian Socialist Party delegate G. Serrati declared that the resolution on the war and the tasks of Social- Democrats, motioned by the Left, was either premature or belated, because the war was already on and it had been impossible to prevent its outbreak. p. 354

453 The addenda were not included in the final text of the statement read out at the Conference in which the Zimmerwald Left motivated its voting for the official manifesto. p. 355

454 This is apparently the beginning of an unfinished article. p. 355 455 Lenin gave a lecture on the subject of “Two Internationals” in Zurich on February 4 (17), 1916. He gave the same lecture under a slightly changed name, “Two Trends in the International Work- ing-Class Movement”, in Lausanne between May 19 and 21 (June 1 and 3) and in Geneva on May 20 (June 2). The manuscript of the plan for the lecture, which is at the Cen- tral Party Archives of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the C.P.S.U. Central Committee, also reflects Lenin’s preparation for the second lecture in Lausanne and Geneva. In connection with the new data available after the Second International Socialist Conference at Kienthal, Lenin made additions, crossed out some points and changed their numeration. All the changes made by Lenin in the plan are indicated in the footnotes. p. 359 456 A reference to the report by Henriette Roland-Holst in “Beilage zur Berner Tagwacht” (Supplement to the Berne Sentinel) No. 18 of January 22, 1916, concerning the speech by the Secretary of the International Socialist Bureau, C. Huysmans, at the Extraordinary Congress of the Social-Democratic Party of Holland on January 8-9; Huysmans also spoke at Rotterdam on February 2. He was opposed by the Left internationalist D. Wijnkoop, who said that since Huysmans had voted for the war credits, socialists could no longer regard him as Secretary of the International Socialist Bureau. “We shall set up another International,” said Wijnkoop. NOTES 575

At the Central Party Archives of the Institute of Marxism- Leninism of the C.P.S.U. Central Committee there is a cutting from “Beilage zur Berner Tagwacht” No. 18 of January 22, 1916, with Lenin’s markings; on Huysmans’s speech at Rotterdam, Lenin made an extract from L’Humanité of February 9, 1916. Both documents were published in 1931 in Lenin Miscellany XVII. Berner Tagwacht (Berne Sentinel)—an organ of the Social-Demo- cratic Party of Switzerland, published in Berne since 1893. From 1909 to 1918, it was edited by R. Grimm. At the beginning of the First World War, it carried articles by K. Liebknecht, F. Mehring and other Left-wing Social-Democrats. From 1917 on, the newspaper openly supported the social-chauvinists. At the present time, the paper takes the same stand on the main domestic and foreign policy issues as the bourgeois press. p. 358 457 A reference to the editorial article in No. 43 of Avanti! of February 12, 1916, “Intorno all’organizzazione socialista inter- nazionale” (Around the Socialist International). The Central Party Archives of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the C.P.S.U. Central Committee has Lenin’s extracts from this article with his remarks. Avanti! (Forward!)— a daily, the Central Organ of the Italian Socialist Party, founded in Rome in December 1896. During the First World War, the paper took an inconsistent internationalist stand without breaking up with the reformists. In 1926, it was closed down by Mussolini’s fascist government, but continued irregular publications abroad; resumed publication in Italy in 1943. p. 358 458 A possible reference to reports from Paris about the Congress of the French Socialist Party of December 25-29, 1915, published in No. 52 of The Labour Leader on December 30, 1915, and in Nos. 2 and 4 on January 13 and 27, 1916. The Labour Leader—a weekly published since 1891. From 1893, organ of the Independent Labour Party of Britain. From 1922, it was published under the name of New Leader; and since 1946, carries the name of Socialist Leader. p. 359 459 The Labour Party of Britain was founded in 1900 as an association of trade unions, socialist organisations and groups to seat labour representatives in Parliament (the Labour Representation Com- mittee). In 1906, the Committee took the name of Labour Party. Trade union members are automatically members of the Labour Party provided they pay party dues. The Labour Party is headed by an Executive Committee which together with the General Trades Union Council and the Executive of the Co-operative Party makes up the National Labour Council. Closely allied to the Labour Party are the Co-operative Party, which is a collective member, and the Independent Labour Party. The Labour Party, which was initially a party of workers (many members of the petty bourgeoisie joined the party later), is opportunist in ideology and tactics. During the First World War its leaders took a social-chauvinist stand. 576 NOTES

The Labourites have repeatedly formed governments (1924, 1929, 1945 and 1950), which conducted the policy of British imperialism. The dissatisfaction of the British working people with the reactionary policy of the Labour Party leadership has resulted in the formation of a Left-wing trend in the party aimed against the official policy of its leadership. p. 358

460 Forward—a newspaper published in Glasgow since 1906. During the First World War it supported the policy of the Independent Labour Party of Britain. It was banned by the authorities after it carried a report on the so-called 1915 “Christmas events” in Glasgow (the centre on the Clyde area and of the shop stewards’ movement), when Lloyd George, at the time Minister of Munitions, was shouted down by workers, who then staged an impressive demonstration in the heart of the city carrying anti-war and anti- government slogans. They threatened to strike and the ban on the paper was lifted. p. 359

461 Merthyr—a district in Southern Wales. Lenin apparently refers to the by-elections in the district, when the representative of the British Socialist Party mustered the votes of the Liberals and the Conservatives against the candidate of the Independent Labour Party. No. 46 of The Labour Leader of November 18, 1915, carried a report on the electoral struggle in Merthyr. p. 359 462 An apparent reference to the newspaper The Socialist the official organ of the Socialist Labour Party of Britain, published in Glas- gow in 1904, 1909-10, 1916, 1918-23. p. 359 463 Nashe Slovo (Our Word)—a Menshevik-Trotskyite newspaper published in Paris from January 1915 to September 1916, in place of Golos. p. 359 464 A possible reference to the report in the form of an appeal, “Die Internationalen in Oesterreich an die Internationalen aller Länder” (The Internationalists of Austria to the Internationalists of All Countries), carried in “Beilage zur Berner Tagwacht” Nos. 283 and 284 on December 3 and 4, 1915. p. 361 465 A reference to Eugene Debs’s articles “When I Shall Fight”, “’Pre- paredness’ I Favour”, “The Only War I Will Fight in” and “Never Be a Soldier”, published in the newspaper Appeal to Reason on August 25, September 11, December 11 and 25, 1915 (Nos. 1032, 1045 and 1047). Cuttings from Appeal to Reason with Lenin’s markings are at the Central Party Archives of the Institute of Marxism-Lenin- ism of the C.P.S.U. Central Committee. p. 361

466 Nashe Dyelo (Our Cause)—a Menshevik liquidator monthly first published in January 1915 in place of Nasha Zarya, which was closed down in October 1914. Nashe Dyelo was the main organ of the social-chauvinists in Russia, and had contributions from Y. Mayevsky, P. P. Maslov, A. N. Potresov and N. Cherevanin, among others. There were six issues. p. 360 NOTES 577

467 Nash Golos (Our Voice)—a legal Menshevik newspaper published in Samara in 1915-16; it took a social-chauvinist stand. p. 360 468 Rabocheye Utro (The Workers’ Morning)—a legal Menshevik paper published in Petrograd from October to December 1915 in succession to Utro which appeared in August 1915. The newspaper used internationalist phrases to cover up its social-chauvinism and defencism. p. 360 469 “Khvostov labour party”—named after A. N. Khvostov, Minister for the Interior and Chief of the special gendarme corps in 1915 and 1916. In the manuscript Lenin wrote the word “Stolypin” over the word “Khvostov”. p. 361

470 “Europa und die Revolution” (Europe and Revolution)—the title of an editorial item carried in No. 35 of Volksrecht on February 11, 1916, in connection with an article signed I. S. in the Lucerne chauvinist newspaper Vaterland, whose author said that the continuation of the war could cause revolution which was more dangerous “for the throne and the altar” than the war itself. An extract made by Lenin from Volksrecht with his remarks is at the Central Party Archives of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the C.P.S.U. Central Committee. p. 361

471 Lenin is comparing the voting against the war credits by the 20 Social-Democratic deputies of the German Reichstag on Decem- ber 21, 1915, and the voting on March 20, 1915, when only two (Karl Liebknecht and Otto Rühle) voted against the war credits. The voting of 20 deputies against the war credits testified to growing pressure from the masses on the leadership of the Social- Democratic Party of Germany and its Reichstag group. However, the majority of the C.C. (Vorstand) and of the Reichstag group censured the December 21 vote as a breach of party discipline. Speaking of the inconsistency of the 20, Lenin is referring to a statement made by F. Geyer on behalf of the members of the Social-Democratic group who had voted against the war credits on December 21, which gave no characteristic of the war as imperialist, made no mention of proletarian internationalism, and assumed that German plans of conquest were of a very recent development. p. 360

472 Lichtstrahlen (Rays of Light)—a monthly, organ of the group of Left-wing Social-Democrats of Germany (Internationale Sozia- listen Deutschlands), published under the editorship of J. Bor- chardt. It was published in Berlin with interruptions from 1913 to 1921. Among those who took part in the magazine were A. Pan- nekoek and A. Balabanova. p. 362

473 No. 11 of Vorwärts of January 12, 1916, carried a statement by Otto Rühle, “Zur Parteispaltung” (On the Party Split), in which he said a split in the Social-Democratic Party of Germany was inevitable. The editors of Vorwärts said in the editorial that although the article was being published verbatim, they believed 578 NOTES

that the controversial questions raised in it were not only premature, but altogether irrelevant. p. 362 474 A reference to the May Day demonstration and a strike by the young workers of Brunswick in early May 1916. The strike was staged in protest against the government’s deduction of part of the young workers’ wages for a war loan. More than 1,500 men took part in the strike and the demonstration. Following a stubborn struggle, the government was forced to rescind its order on deduc- tions on May 5, 1916. p. 363 475 A reference to E. Vaillant’s editorial article “Formalistes doctrinaires” (Doctrinaire Formalists) in L’Humanité No. 3827 on October 9, 1914, in which Vaillant, who went over to social- chauvinist positions at the very beginning of the war, was forced to admit that he was receiving letters from French socialists protesting against the policy of the French Socialist Party leadership. Lenin’s extracts from Vaillant’s article are in Lenin Miscel- lany XIV, p. 97. p. 362 476 A reference to the appeal “To the Women of the Proletariat”, signed by Louise Saumoneau on behalf of the French Socialist Women’s Action Committee calling for the struggle for peace and against chauvinism. A copy of the appeal with Lenin’s markings is at the Central Party Archives of the Institute of Marxism- Leninism of the C.P.S.U. Central Committee. p. 363 477 The New Statesman—a weekly of the Fabian Society, founded in London in 1913. Since 1931, it has been published under the name of The New Statesman and Nation. At present, it expresses the views of the Labour Party’s Left wing. p. 362 478 A possible reference to the approval of the Zimmerwald Mani- festo by the Executive Committee of the British Socialist Party. At the end of 1915, it decided to poll local organisations about adhering to Zimmerwald; an overwhelming majority of local party organisations came out in favour of adherence. A report on the poll was published in the I.S.C. Bulletin No. 3 of February 29, 1916. p. 362 479 A reference to the walk-out of H. Hyndman and his supporters from the annual conference of the British Socialist Party held at Salford on April 23 and 24, 1916. The conference marked the break-away of the British Socialist Party from the social-chauvinists. The conference adopted a number of anti-war resolutions of a general democratic character and a resolution urging the use of the party’s full influence to put an end to the war. By an overwhelming majority, the conference adopted a resolution saying that the socialists recognise only a class war. In early June 1916, Hyndman set up the National Socialist Party which in 1918 took the name of the Social-Democratic Federation. p. 363

480 A reference to the speech of C. Trèves in the Italian Chamber of Deputies on December 2, 1915. A report on the speech was published in Avant! No. 335 on December 3, 1915. p. 362 NOTES 579

481 Tesnyaki—a revolutionary trend in the Bulgarian Social-Democratic Party, which took shape in 1903 as an independent Bulgarian Social-Democratic Labour Party. The founder and leader of the Tesnyaki was D. Blagoev. He was succeeded by his followers G. Dimitrov, V. Kolarov and others. From 1914 to 1918, the Tesnyaki opposed the imperialist war. In 1919, they joined the Communist International and set up the Communist Party of Bul- garia. p. 362 482 Tribune, De Tribune—a newspaper founded in 1907 by the Left wing of the Dutch Social-Democratic Labour Party. In 1909, following the expulsion of the Left-wingers from the party and their establishment of the Social-Democratic Party of Holland, it became the organ of the latter. From 1918, it was the organ of the Dutch Communist Party, published under the name until 1937. p. 362 483 A possible reference to the items by E. Pernerstorfer, “Russland und wir” (Russia and We) and “Nochmals Russland und wir” (Once again Russia and We), published in Nos. 13 and 20 of Die Neue Zeit on December 24, 1915, and February 11, 1916. p. 364

484 A reference to the article “Die Stellung der Sozialdemokraten Australiens zum Krieg” (The Attitude of Australian Social- Democrats to the War) published under the initials J. K. in “Beilage zur Berner Tagwacht” Nos. 32 and 34 of February 8 and 10, 1916. p. 364

485 “I.K.”, “Internationale Korrespondenz” (International Correspon- dence)—a weekly of the German social-chauvinists dealing with international affairs and the labour movement. It was published in Berlin from the end of September 1914 to October 1, 1918. An apparent reference to the article “Hughes und die australi- schen Gewerksschaften” (Hughes and the Australian Trade Unions) published in Internationale Korrespondenz No. 15 on May 23, 1916. A copy of this magazine with Lenin’s markings on the article is at the Central Party Archives of the Institute of Marxism-Lenin- ism of the C.P.S.U. Central Committee. p. 364

486 Appeal to Reason—the newspaper of the American socialists, founded at Girard, Kansas, in 1895. It was not officially connected with the Socialist Party of America, but conducted propaganda of socialist ideas and was very popular among the workers. The paper had contributions from the American Socialist Eugene Debs. p. 364

487 Kommunist was organised by Lenin and was published by the Editorial Board of Sotsial-Demokrat together with G. L. Pyatakov and Yevgenia Bosh, who financed the publication. N. I. Bukharin was also on the Editorial Board. One (double) issue was published. It carried, apart from the article “The Voice of an Honest French Socialist”, two other articles by Lenin: “The Collapse of the Second International” and “Imperialism and Socialism in Italy”. 580 NOTES

The plan for the publication of the journal was worked out by Lenin in the spring of 1915. He directed the organisational meeting of the Editorial Board. Lenin hoped to make it an international organ of Left-wing Social-Democrats. However, there soon appeared serious differences between the Editorial Board and Bukharin, Pyatakov and Bosh, which were aggravated after the issue of No. 1-2. The Bukharin-Pyatakov-Bosh group took an incorrect attitude on many basic questions of the Programme and tactics of the Party—the right of nations to self-determination, the role of democratic demands and the minimum programme in general, etc.—and tried to use the journal for their factional aims. On the Editorial Board, Lenin conducted a struggle against the Bukharin- Pyatakov-Bosh group, exposing their anti-Bolshevik views and factionaI acts, and sharply criticising the conciliatory attitude of G. Y. Zinoviev and A. G. Shlyapnikov towards the group. In view of the anti-Party behaviour of this group, the Editorial Board of Sotsial-Demokrat, on Lenin’s proposal, declared that it considered the further publication of the journal impossible. The C.C. Bureau in Russia, having heard a report on the differences on the Kommunist Editorial Board, declared its full solidarity with the Editorial Board of the Central Organ, Sotsial-Demokrat, and expressed the wish that “all C.C. publications should be edited in a strictly consistent tenor, in full conformity with the line of the C.C., which it had adopted at the beginning of the war”. p. 367 488 The following text is an addition to the draft resolution, addressed to G. Y. Zinoviev. p. 367 489 Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata (Sotsial-Demokrat Collection) was founded by Lenin and published by the Editorial Board of the newspaper Sotsial-Demokrat. There were two issues: No. 1 in October and No. 2 in December 1916. Material was prepared for No. 3 which was to include Lenin’s article “A Caricature of Marx- ism and Imperialist Economism”, but the publication was discontinued for lack of funds. p. 368

490 The name given to G. Pyatakov and Yevgenia Bosh because they had emigrated from Russia to Switzerland via Japan. p. 368

491 The Second International Socialist Conference was held at Kienthal, Switzerland, from April 24 to 30, 1916. It was attended by 43 delegates from 10 countries and discussed the following questions: 1) the struggle to end the war; 2) attitude of the proletariat to questions of peace; 3) agitation and propaganda; 4) parliamentary activity; 5) mass struggle, and 6) convocation of the International Socialist Bureau. As a result of the work done by Lenin and the Bolsheviks before the Conference, the Left wing at the Conference was stronger than at Zimmerwald. The Zimmerwald Left worked out and motioned at the Conference a draft resolution on peace, which contained Lenin’s basic propositions. Although the Kienthal Conference failed to adopt the Bolshevik slogans—to transform the imperial- NOTES 581

ist war into a civil war, to work for the defeat in the war of one’s own imperialist government and to set up the Third Internation- al—it nevertheless helped to bring out and rally the internationalist elements. Lenin said the Kienthal Conference was a step forward. Lenin wrote: “Draft Resolution on the Convocation of the Second Socialist Conference”, “For the Conference To Be Held on April 24, 1916. Proposal of the Delegation” and “Proposals Submitted by the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. to the Second Socialist Conference” (see present edition, Vol. 22, pp. 121, 122, 169-79). p. 369

492 The International Socialist Commission (I.S.C.) in Berne—the executive organ of the Zimmerwald association, set up by the Zim- merwald Conference held on September 5-8, 1915. The I.S.C. included the Centrists R. Grimm, O. Morgari, Ch. Naine, and A. Bala- banova as interpreter. The official report of the Conference published in the I.S.C. Bulletin No. 1 of September 21, 1915, said: “This secretariat should in no sense substitute for the now existing International Socialist Bureau, and should be dissolved as soon as the latter can fully answer its purpose.” On a copy of the report, now at the Central Party Archives, Lenin underlined these words and wrote in the margin: “Kein Beschluss darüber” (There was no decision about this), that is, the decision was adopted not by the Zimmerwald association, but after the Conference. p. 369 493 The London conference of the socialists of the Triple Entente countries was held on February 14, 1915. It was attended by representatives of the social-chauvinists and pacifist groups of Britain, France, Belgium and Russia: the Independent Labour Party, the British Socialist Party, the Labour Party, the Fabian Society, the French Socialist Party, the General Confederation of Labour, the Belgian Socialist Party, the S.R.s and the Mensheviks. On its agenda were these questions: 1) the rights of nations; 2) colonies; 3) guarantees for a future peace. The Bolsheviks were not invited to the conference. However on Lenin’s instructions, M. M. Litvinov went to the conference to read out a declaration of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee. It was based on a draft written by Lenin. The declaration contained a demand for the withdrawal of the socialists from the bourgeois governments, a complete break with the imperialists a repudiation of collaboration with them, resolute struggle against the imperialist governments and condemnation of the voting of war credits. As he was reading out the declaration, Litvinov was interrupted and not allowed to continue. He handed in the text of the declaration to the presidium and left the conference. On the London conference see Lenin’s articles “The London Conference” and “On the London Conference” (present edition, Vol. 21, pp. 132-34, 178-80). p. 371 494 A reference to the conference of socialists from Germany and Austria held in Vienna in April 1915. It was a sort of response to the London conference of the socialists of the Triple Entente countries. Its 582 NOTES

resolution endorsed the social-chauvinist “defend your country” slogan in the imperialist war. p. 371 495 Possibilists—a petty-bourgeois reformist trend in the French socialist movement. Their idea was that the workers should confine their struggle to the “possible”. p. 372 496 The circular—the appeal “To All Affiliated Parties and Groups”— was adopted unanimously at the meeting of the enlarged I.S.C. held at Berne from February 5 to 9, 1916. The delegation of the R.S.D.L.P. C.C., led by Lenin, entered a statement saying that the appeal was a step forward from the decisions of the First Inter- national Socialist Conference at Zimmerwald, but that it did not find it satisfactory on every point. The appeal was published in No. 3 of the I.S.C. Bulletin on February 29, 1916, and in No. 52 of Sozial-Demokrat on March 25, 1916. p. 375

497 The question of attitude to convening the International Socialist Bureau was the subject of acute polemics at the Kienthal Confer- ence on April 27 and 28, 1916. The Kautskian section of the Con- ferencs motioned several draft resolutions containing the common demand for recognising the need to call the I.S.B. Supporters of the Zimmerwald Left, headed by Lenin, opposed the idea. Under the pressure of the Left, the Right-wing delegates had to support the draft compromise resolution worked out by the committee. The resolution sharply criticised the I.S.B. and demanded the replacement of the Executive Committee of the I.S.B. and expulsion of the socialist ministers from their parties. However, it did not urge an immediate break with the I.S.B. or the establishment of a new International, but, on the contrary, authorised the national sections within the Zimmerwald association to demand the convocation of the I.S.B. p. 379 498 The joint conference of Italian and Swiss socialists held at Lugano (Switzerland) on September 27, 1914. This was the first wartime effort to restore international ties. p. 379 499 In his speech, L. Martov proposed that the draft resolutions on convening the I.S.B. should be referred to the committee to work out a compromise resolution. p. 380

500 This was a protest against the oppressive policy of the tsarist autocracy, and the German and the Austrian governments, who, “depriving the Polish people of the possibility of deciding its own future, regard the Polish regions as a pledge in the forthcoming game of compensations....” “This is an especially gross expression of the essence of the policy of the capitalist governments, who, while sending masses of people into the slaughter, arbitrarily determine the future of the peoples for whole generations.” The Polish Social-Democrats expressed the conviction that only the participation in the imminent struggle of the revolutionary international proletariat for socialism, “a struggle that would break the chains of national oppression and abolish all forms of alien domination, will assure the Polish people as well the possibi- NOTES 583

lity of an all-round development as an equal member of the union of nations”. The document published here was written by Lenin on a separate sheet and is apparently a variant of the corresponding passage from his article “The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up” (see present edition, Vol. 22, p. 348). p. 380

501 The plan was drawn up not earlier than November 18 (December 1), 1916, when Lenin was working on the material concerning the Marxist attitude to the state. The sheet containing the plan was inserted in the notebook “Marxism on the State”. That Lenin intended to write a work on the state is evident from his note “The Youth International” published in December 1916. Analysing and criticising N. I. Bukharin’s article “The Imperialist Predatory State”, Lenin wrote: “We hope to return to this very important subject in a separate article” (see present edition, Vol. 23, p. 166). A comparison of the present plan with Bukharin’s articles “Con- cerning the Theory of the Imperialist State” and “The Imperialist Predatory State” shows that this is precisely the plan for an article aimed against Bukharin’s anti-Marxist, semi-anarchist views of the state. In a letter to A. M. Kollontai on February 4 (17), 1917, Lenin wrote: “I am preparing (have got the material ready) an article on the question of the attitude of Marxism to the state” (see present edition, Vol. 35, p. 286). The article was intended for No. 4 of Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata, but was apparently not written. The material collected by Lenin for the article made up his notebook, “Marxism on the State” (see Fifth Russian edition of the Collected Works, Vol. 33, pp. 123-307) and was used by Lenin in his book The State and Revolution (see present edition, Vol. 25, pp. 385- 497). p. 381 502 See Marx, “Critical Remarks on ‘Prussian’s’ Article, ‘The King of Prussia and Social Reform’”. Lenin quotes the article from the book Aus dem literarischen Nachlaß, von K. Marx, F. Engels und F. Lassalle. Hrsg. von F. Mehring. Bd. 2. Gesammelte Schriften von K. Marx und F. Engels. Von Juli 1844 bis November 1847. Stuttgart, 1902. p. 382 503 Engels, “On Authority” (see Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. I, Moscow, 1962, pp. 636-39). p. 382 504 See Marx, “Der politischen Indifferentismus” (Political In- differentism) (Marx/Engels, Werke, Bd, 18, S. 299-304, Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1962). p. 382 505 The Social-Democratic Party of Switzerland (in French and Italian cantons the party is called the Swiss Socialist Party) was set up in the 1870s and was a member of the First International. It was re-established in 1888. Strong influence in the party was enjoyed by the opportunists, who in the First World War took a social- chauvinist stand. In the autumn of 1916, the Right wing split away from the Party and set up its own organisation. The party majority headed by B. Grimm took a Centrist, social-pacifist 584 NOTES

stand. The Left wing of the party took an internationalist stand. Under the influence of the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia, the Left wing of the party gained in strength. In Decem- ber 1920, the Left withdrew from the party and in 1921 united with the Communist Party of Switzerland (now the Swiss Party of Labour), which was formed in 1919. p. 382

506 The Spartacus group—a revolutionary organisation of German Left- wing Social-Democrats, formed at the beginning of the First World War by Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, Franz Mehring, Clara Zetkin, J. Marchlewski, L. Jogiches (Tyszka) and W. Pieck. In April 1915 Rosa Luxemburg and Franz Mehring founded the magazine Die Internationale, which rallied the main forces of Ger- man Left-wing Social-Democrats. On January 1, 1916, an All- German ConferenceFROM of Left-wing MARXSocial-Democrats was held in Ber- lin where the group was formalised and decided to call itself the Internationale group. As its platform, the conference adopted “Leitsätze” (Basic Propositions)TO MAO worked out by Rosa Luxemburg with the participation of Karl Liebknecht, Franz Mehring and Clara Zetkin. In 1916, the Internationale group, apart from political leaflets which it published from 1915, began illegal publication and circulation of “Political Letters” signed Spartacus (published regularly until October 1918); then it also began to call itself the Spartacus group. The Spartacists conducted revolutionary propaganda in the masses, organised mass anti-war manifestations, directed strikes and exposed the imperialist character of the world war and the betrayal of the opportunist Social-Democratic leaders. However they made serious mistakesNOT in theory FOR and policy: they denied the possibility of national liberation wars in the epoch of imperialism failed to take a consistent stand on the slogan of transforming the imperialist warCOMMERCIAL into a civil war, underestimated the role of the proletarian party as the vanguard of the working class and feared a resolute break with the opportunists. In April 1917,DISTRIBUTION the group joined the Centrist Independent Social- Democratic Party of Germany, retaining its organisational independence. In November 1918, during the revolution in Ger- many, the Spartacus group broke away from the “Independ- ents” and set up the Spartacus Union, publishing its own programme on December 14, 1918. At their inaugural congress (Decem- ber 30, 1918-January 1, 1919) they set up the Communist Party of Germany. Lenin repeatedly criticised the mistakes of the German Left-wing Social-Democrats and pointed to the inconsistency of their stand. At the same time, he put a high value on their revolutionary activity. He wrote: “The work of the German Spartacus group, which has carried on systematic revolutionary propaganda in the most difficult conditions, has really saved the honour of German socialism and the German proletariat” (see present edition, Vol. 35, p. 369). p. 383

507 These are Lenin’s remarks to an article by G. Y. Zinoviev on maximalism intended for publication in the journal Kommunist or the NOTES 585

newspaper Sotsial-Demokrat. The article did not appear in the press. p. 384 508 Dyelo (The Cause)—a fortnightly Menshevik journal, published in Moscow from August 1916 to January 1917 under the editorship of A. N. Potresov, P. P. Maslov and L. I. Axelrod (Orthodox). In 1916, there were ten issues (three of them double issues), and in 1917—one. The journal took a chauvinist attitude. p. 384 509 Three pillars—the accepted designation in the legal Bolshevik press and at open, legal meetings of the three basic (“uncurtailed”) revolutionary slogans: democratic republic, 8-hour working day and confiscation of all landed estates. p. 386 510 A reference to R. Hilferding’s book Finance Capital. The Recent Phase in the Development of Capitalism. Authorised translation from the German by I. Stepanov, Moscow, 1912. p. 388 511 Joseph Patouillet, L’impérialiste américain (American Imperial- ism), Dijon, 1904. Junius—Rosa Luxemburg’s pseudonym; her book Die Krise der Sozialdemokratie (Crisis of Social-Democracy) was published in 1916. For Lenin’s extracts from this work see present edition, Vol. 39, pp. 209-12. p. 388 512 A reference to two articles of the German chauvinist Paul Lensch, carried in the magazine Die Glocke (The Bell): “Die Selbstbest- immungsflause” (Bragging about Self-Determination) in No. 8, 1915, and “Sozialismus und Annexionen in der Vergangenheit” (Socialism and Annexations in the Past) in No. 9, 1916. Lenin’s extracts from these articles are in Lenin Miscellany XXX, pp. 118-27. p. 388 513 An apparent reference to the following five articles by Kautsky: 1) “Sozialdemokratische Anschauungen über den Krieg vor dem jetzigen Krieg” (Social-Democratic Views on War Before the Pres- ent War)—Die Neue Zeit No. 13, December 29, 1916; 2) “Neue Sozialdemokratischen Auffassungen vom Krieg” (New Social- Democratic View on War)—Die Neue Zeit No. 14, January 5, 1917; 3) “Friedensbedingungen” (Terms of Peace—Leipziger Volkszeitung, December 13, 1916; 4) “Die Aufnahme des Frieden- sangebots” (Acceptance of Peace Proposal)—Leipziger Volkszei- tung, December 21, 1916; 5) “Der Heiland der Welt” (Saviour of the World)—Leipziger Volkszeitung No. 289, Decem- ber 24, 1916. p. 389

514 Neue Beiträge zur Biographie von Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels (New Material for a Biography of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels) published by Franz Mehring in Die Neue Zeit, XXV. Jahrgang, 11. Bd. 1907. p. 389

515 This was written in connection with an article by R. Grimm, “The Majority and the Minority on the War Question”, in Berner Tagwacht Nos. 19-23 of January 23-27 and in the magazine Neues Leben in January 1917, which defended the Centrist attitude of the majority of the Swiss Social-Democratic Party. p. 391 586 NOTES

516 The article was not written. Many propositions formulated in the plan were elaborated by Lenin in his “Letters from Afar” (see present edition, Vol. 23, pp. 295-342). p. 393

517 This deals with the question of reworking the Party Programme. Lenin first intended to devote the fourth and then the fifth letter to this subject. But both the fourth and the unfinished fifth letter deal with other subjects. The manuscript of the plan included in this volume shows that Lenin subsequently added new points to it (2 bis, 5 bis and points marked with a &). The plan became the basis for his work on the Party Programme upon his arrival in Russia (see present edition, Vol. 24, pp. 459- 63, 466-79). V. A. Karpinsky said the note in the margin was addressed to him. p. 394

518 See Engels, “Zur Kritik des socialdemokratischen Programment- wurfes 1891” (Criticism of the Draft Social-Democratic Programme of 1891) (Marx/Engels, Werke, Bd. 22, S. 240-43, Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1962). p. 395

519 The book burnt by the tsarist censorship was Lenin’s The Agrarian Programme of Social-Democracy in the First Russian Revolution of 1905-1907, which he wrote at the end of 1907 (see present edition, Vol. 13, pp. 217-431). In 1908 the book was printed in St. Peters- burg, but was confiscated by the police at the printers’ and destroyed. By 1917, only one copy remained. It was first published in 1917. p. 395

520 Politiken (Politics)—a newspaper of the Swedish Left-wing Social- Democrats who in 1917 set up the Left Social-Democratic Party of Sweden; it was published in Stockholm from April 27, 1916. From November 1917, it was published under the name Folkets Dagblad Politiken (People’s Political Daily). From 1916 to 1918 it was edited by Ture Nerman. Among its contributors were the Left Zimmerwaldists of Germany, Russia, France and other countries. In 1921, after the Left Social-Democratic Party joined the Comintern and took the name of Communist Party, the newspaper became its organ. Following a split in the Communist Party in October 1929, the paper passed into the hands of the Right wing. Its publication was discontinued in May 1945. p. 396 521 Socialdemokraten (Social-Democrat)—organ of the Right, social- chauvinist wing of the Swedish Social-Democratic Party, led by K. H. Branting. p. 396 522 The communiqué was handed by Lenin to the Editorial Board of the Swedish Left-wing Social-Democratic newspaper, Politiken, and through it to the representatives of the press and public, upon his arrival in Stockholm on March 31 (April 13). The newspapers Rech and Den, having received the text of the communiqué through the Petrograd telegraph agency, published it on April 5 (18) without the last paragraph which contained the testimony of NOTES 587

the representatives of international Social-Democracy concerning the organisation of the trip across Germany. p. 397 523 Nachalo (The Beginning)—a newspaper published in Paris from September 1916 to March 1917 in place of Nashe Slovo. After the bourgeois-democratic revolution in February 1917 the paper was published under the title Novaya Epokha (New Epoch). p. 397 524 Demain (Tomorrow)—a literary, publicistic and political monthly founded by the French internationalist, writer and journalist H. Guilbeaux; it was published first in Geneva and then in Moscow from January 1916 to 1919 (with a break from January to April 1917). p. 398 525 A reference to F. Loriot. p. 398 526 The conference was held on the morning of March 31 (April 13) at the Regina Hotel in the presence of a group of Russian émigrés led by Lenin and Swedish Left-wing Social-Democrats C. Lind- hagen, F. Ström, C. N. Carleson, K. Kilbom and Ture Nerman. The burgomaster of Stockholm C. Lindhagen and Lenin presided at the conference. C. Lindhagen spoke on the subject of “Light from the East”; Lenin gave a short report on the trip; a protocol on the circumstances of the trip across Germany was read out, after which the Swedish Social-Democrats expressed their readiness to testify their full solidarity with the step of the Russian revolutionaries. On behalf of the Swedes the conference was also addressed by C. N. Carleson, who expressed the hope that the revolution in Russia would grow into an international one. In conclusion, the Swedes gave an enthusiastic reception to the Russians and the organiser of the trip, Fritz Platten. p. 398

527 The Bolshevik group of the Soviet discussed the attitude to the “liberty loan” for two days, April 10 and 11 (23 and 24), 1917. The draft resolution for the Plenary Meeting of the Soviet was worked out with Lenin’s active participation. A resolution refusing support for the loan was motioned by the committee headed by A. M. Kol- lontai, after which Lenin and Zinoviev proposed a second resolution supplementing the first. The two resolutions were consolidated and were adopted unanimously on April 11 (24). The report of the group’s sitting was published in Pravda No. 31 of April 13 (26). In his report on the present situation at the April Conference, Lenin said that the question of war “actually united us when we came out against the loan” (present edition, Vol. 24, p. 232). At the Soviet’s Plenary Meeting, 2,000 deputies voted for the loan and 123 against. p. 399

528 The Petrograd City Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.) was called by decision of the St. Petersburg Committee of April 6 (19) and was held from April 14 to 22 (April 27-May 5), 1917. It was attended by 57 delegates, including delegates from the Finnish, Estonian, Latvian, Polish and Lithuanian organisations, representatives of the Military Organisation, and also two mezhraiontsi (see Note 556). On the agenda were the following questions: current 588 NOTES

tasks—present situation; attitude to the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies and the question of its reorganisation; structure of Party organisation; attitude to the other Social-Democratic trends; municipal elections; harassment of Pravda. Lenin was elected honorary Chairman of the Conference. He gave the main political report on “Current Tasks—Present Situation”, and was on the committee to work out the resolutions: “On the Attitude Towards the Provisional Government” and “On the War”; he motioned the resolutions “On the Municipal Elections” and “On the Attitude Towards the Parties of Socialist-Revolutionaries, Menshevik Social-Democrats, ‘non-factional’ Social-Democrats and other kindred political trends”. Kamenev’s attempt in his speech and amendments to Lenin’s resolution on the attitude to the Provisional Government to put through the demand of control over it, was exposed by Lenin as conciliatory, as the policy of Chkheidze and Steklov. By an overwhelming majority, the Conference adopted Lenin’s resolution on the attitude to the Provisional Government. At the first sitting it adopted Lenin’s appeal “Against the Riot-mongers. To the Workers, Soldiers and the Whole Population of Petrograd.” On April 10 (May 2) the sittings were interrupted in view of the massive protest movement in response to the Provisional Govern- ment’s note to the allied powers on April 18 (May 1) expressing its readiness to continue the imperialist war. The Conference decided to urge the workers and soldiers to give organised expression to their solidarity with the basic propositions of the Party Central Committee resolution of April 20 (May 3) on the crisis in connection with the said note of the Provisional Government (see present edition, Vol. 24, pp. 184-85). The delegates took part in explanatory work carried on by the Central Committee in the masses. In view of this, subsequent sittings were not fully attended. The decisions of the Petrograd City Conference testified to the cohesion of the Petrograd Bolsheviks round Lenin’s “April Theses”; Lenin’s tactics were given approval by the Party organisation of the capital, the largest in the country. The resolutions of the Petrograd Conference largely formed the basis of the resolutions of the Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.) (see present edition, Vol. 24, pp. 139-66). p. 400

529 Izvestia Petrogradskogo Sovieta Rabochikh i Soldatskikh Deputatov (Bulletin of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Depu- ties)—a daily; the first issue appeared on February 28 (March 13), 1917, under the title Izvestia Petrogradskogo Sovieta Rabochikh Deputatov (Bulletin of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ Deputies); from No. 3 of March 2 (15) the paper became the organ of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. With the formation, at the First All-Russia Congress of Soviets, of the Central Executive Committee of the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, the paper became its organ and from August 1 (14) (No. 132) was published under the name Izvestia Tsentralnogo Ispolnitelnogo Komiteta i Petrogradskogo Sovieta Rabochikh i Soldatskikh Deputatov (Bulletin of the Central Execu- NOTES 589

tive Committee and of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Sol- diers’ Deputies). The paper’s political line was determined by the representatives of the S.R.-Menshevik bloc who conducted the conciliatory policy of supporting the bourgeois Provisional Govern- ment and who opposed the revolutionary action of the proletariat. After the Second All-Russia Congress of Soviets, its Editorial Board was changed and the newspaper became the official organ of the Soviet Government. It carried the first important documents of the Soviet Government and Lenin’s articles and speeches. In March 1918, its publication was transferred to Moscow. After the formation of the U.S.S.R. in December 1922, the paper became the organ of the Central Executive Committee of the U.S.S.R. and the All-Russia Central Executive Committee. Under a decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. on January 24, 1938, the paper was reorganised and since January 26, 1938, until the present day it has been published under the name of Izvestia Sovietov Deputatov Trudyashchikhsya (Bulletin of the Soviets of Working People’s Deputies). p. 403

530 A reference to J. Maclean. p. 403

531 Arriving at a meeting of the soldiers’ section of the Soviet of Work- ers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies on April 17 (30), Lenin requested the floor to make an urgent statement over the publication in the newspapers on April 16 (29) of the resolution of the Executive Commission of the soldiers’ section which condemned the “propaganda of the Leninists” as being just as harmful as “any other counter-revolutionary propaganda from the right” (see present edition, Vol. 24, p. 172). As he was speaking the Menshevik-S.R. majority, against the protests of the minority, got his time limited to 30 minutes. When Lenin finished speaking, he replied to questions from the meeting and then to those of the soldiers who surrounded him in a room at the exit of the Taurida Palace. After Lenin’s speech and objections to it from the Menshevik Lieber, the soldiers’ section decided to proceed with its business, without making any statement on the substance of the question. Lenin’s speech was published in a distorted version in Rech and Yedinstvo. It is here published in accordance with the minutes now at the Central Party Archives of the Institute of Marxism- Leninism of the C.P.S.U. Central Committee. p. 404

532 A reference to the dispatch to the front of units from the Petrograd garrison, against which workers and soldiers protested, seeing this as the Provisional Government’s attempt to weaken the revolutionary population of the capital and violate the condition put forward by the Executive Committee when the Provisional Govern- ment was formed on the night of March 1 (14), that the garrison units which had taken part in overthrowing the autocracy were not to be withdrawn from Petrograd. p. 405

533 A reference to the work Socialism and War (see present edition, Vol. 21, pp. 295-338). p. 406 590 NOTES

534 Russkaya Volya (Russian Will)—a bourgeois daily founded by the tsarist Minister for the Interior, A. D. Protopopov, which was financed by the big banks; it was published in Petrograd from December 1916. After the bourgeois-democratic revolution in February 1917, it carried on a slander campaign against the Bol- sheviks. Lenin called it “one of the most infamous bourgeois newspapers” (see present edition, Vol. 25, p. 302). It was closed down by the Revolutionary Military Committee on October 25, 1917. p. 407

535 Show-window villages erected for the benefit of Empress Catherine by her favourite Potemkin. p. 408

536 The Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.) was called by decision of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.) Central Committee, taken between April 4 and 8 (17 and 21), and was held in Petrograd from April 24 to 29 (May 7-12), 1917. It was the Party’s first conference in legal conditions. It was attended by 131 delegates with vote and 18 with voice from 78 Party organisations (including Petrograd and its environments, Moscow and Moscow District, the Central Industrial Area, the Urals, the Donbas, the Volga area and the Caucasus) and also by representatives of front and rear military organisations, the national organisations of Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland and Estonia. On the strength of its representation and the political and organisational tasks it dealt with, the Conference could perform and did perform the work of a Party congress: it worked out the political line for the whole Party and set up the Party governing centres. At 2 p.m. on the day before it opened, there was a meeting of more than a hundred delegates at which new items were added to the agenda and the standing orders of the Conference were approved. A report on the April 21-22 events was given by Lenin who was met with warm applause. On the agenda of the Conference were the following questions: the current situation (the war and the Provisional Government, etc.), a peace conference, attitude to the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, revision of the Party Programme, the situation within the International and the Party’s tasks; unification of the internationalist Social-Democratic organisations, agrarian question, national question, Constituent Assembly, organisational question, reports by regions and elections to the Central Committee. Lenin opened the Conference with a brief speech of welcome and was elected to the presidium. He directed all the work of the Con- ference. The Conference exposed and rejected the Right-wing capitulatory line of L. B. Kamenev, who gave a co-report on the present situation as the representative of an anti-Leninist group. L. B. Kame- nev and A. I. Rykov tried to oppose the Leninist line towards the socialist revolution by the opportunist assessment of the 1917 revolution and the prospects of its development. Denying the possibility and need for the bourgeois-democratic revolution to develop into a socialist revolution, Kamenev proposed that the NOTES 591

Conference should confine itself to accepting control over the bourgeois Provisional Government on the part of the Menshevik- S.R. Soviets. The Conference rejected the capitulatory stand of Kamenev and his small group of supporters, who denied the possibility of the victory of socialism in Russia. In his report on the revision of the Party Programme, Lenin determined the direction in which the Programme Committee set up by the Conference was to rewrite the Programme of 1903. During the debate on the national question, G. L. Pyatakov spoke against Lenin’s slogan of the right of nations to self-determination including secession and the formation of an independent state. In support of his resolution on the national question, Lenin said that this right alone ensured complete solidarity of workers and all working people of different nationalities, while the expe- diency of secession was to be decided by the proletarian party “in each particular case, having regard to the interests of social development as a whole and the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat for socialism” (see present edition, Vol. 24, pp. 302-03). Lenin’s thesis on the break with the Zimmerwald Centrist majority and the establishment of the Third, Communist Interna- tional was opposed by G. Y. Zinoviev. The Conference made a mistake by voting for the Bolsheviks’ participation in the Third Zimmerwald Conference, which was predominantly Centrist in composition, thereby delaying preparations for the establishment of the Third, Communist International. Life itself very soon corrected this mistake (see present edition, Vol. 24, p. 388, and the unfinished article “The Tasks of Our Party in the Interna- tional”, Vol. 26, pp. 220-22). The Conference elected the Central Committee headed by Lenin. The historic importance of the Seventh (April) Conference lay in the fact that it adopted Lenin’s programme for transition to the second stage of the revolution in Russia, mapped out the struggle for the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist revolution and put forward the demand for the transfer of all power to the Soviets. Under this slogan, the Bolsheviks prepared the masses for the proletarian revolution. p. 409

537 The question of calling an international conference of socialists from the belligerent and neutral countries was repeatedly discussed by the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet in April 1917, the Executive Committee proposing to take the initiative in convening such a conference. In the second half of April, the Danish Social-Democrat Borgbjerg, who was connected with the social-chauvinists of Germany, came to Petrograd and on behalf of the United Committee of the Labour Parties of Denmark, Nor- way and Sweden (the social-patriotic majority of these parties) proposed that the socialist parties of Russia should take part in a peace conference to be called at Stockholm in May 1917. On April 23 (May 6), Borgbjerg gave a report at a sitting of the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet, frankly declaring 592 NOTES

that the German Government would agree to the peace terms the German Social-Democrats would put forward at the socialist conference. On April 25 (May 8), the Executive Committee heard statements by the Party groups on this question. The Bolsheviks read out the resolution of the April Conference adopted that day, “On Borgbjerg’s Proposal”; they were joined by representatives of the Polish and the Latvian Social-Democrats. Lenin believed that participation in the proposed conference would be a complete betrayal of internationalism. The April Conference came out resolutely against participation, exposing Borgbjerg as an agent of German imperialism. The Trudoviks, Bundists and Mensheviks favoured participation. The Executive Committee adopted a Men- shevik resolution declaring that it took upon itself the initiative in calling the conference and was setting up a special commission for the purpose. This decision was confirmed by the Plenary Meet- ing of the Soviet. British, French and Belgian socialists of the majority refused to participate in the conference, for the British and the French governments wanted to defeat Germany. The Centrists agreed to take part: the group of J. Longuet from France, and the Inde- pendent Social-Democratic Party, with K. Kautsky, H. Haase and G. Ledebour at the head, from Germany. The Spartacus group, which had affiliated to the party of “Inde- pendents” while retaining its organisational independence, refused to take part in the conference with the social-imperialists. Franz Mehring made a statement about this on his own behalf and on behalf of K. Liebknecht and R. Luxemburg who were in prison. The conference did not take place because some of the delegates were not issued passports by their governments, and others refused to meet with representatives of the countries in a state of war with their own. p. 409

538 Rabochaya Gazeta (Workers’ Newspaper)—a Menshevik daily published in Petrograd from March 7 (20) to November 30 (Decem- ber 13), 1917. From August 30 (September 12) it was an organ of the (United) R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee. The newspaper took a defencist stand and supported the bourgeois Provisional Government, fighting against Lenin and the Bolshevik Party. It gave a hostile reception to the October Revolution and the establishment of the Soviet power. p. 409

539 Yedinstvo (Unity)—a newspaper published in Petrograd, the organ of the extreme Right group of Menshevik defencists led by G. V. Plekhanov. Four issues appeared in May and June 1914. From March to November 1917, It was published daily. Starting from December 1917 to January 1918, it appeared under the name of Nashe Yedinstvo. It gave support to the Provisional Govern- ment, favoured the coalition with the bourgeoisie and “firm power”, and fought against the Bolsheviks, frequently resorting to the methods of the gutter press. Lenin noted that its line was “aiding and abetting the dark forces which threaten violence, bombs, NOTES 593

and riots” and called the paper an “abusive publication” (see present edition, Vol. 24, pp. 129, 199). It gave a hostile reception to the October Revolution and the establishment of the Soviet power. p. 410 540 This was written by Lenin for the Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.) (see Note 536). It became the basis for “Proposed Amendments to the Doctrinal, Political and Other Sections of the Programme” which was published in Lenin’s pamphlet Materials Relating to the Revision of the Party Pro- gramme (see present edition, Vol. 24, pp. 459-63). p. 418 541 Magistrates—an administrative office introduced by the tsarist government during the Peasant Reform in 1861. They were appointed from the local gentry and were empowered to decide disputes between landowners and peasants arising from the Reform. They confirmed officials elected from among the peasants and the decisions of peasants’ meetings; they also had powers to inflict punishment (arrest, fine) on peasants. Stolypin, P. A.—Chairman of the Council of Ministers and Mini- ster for the Interior in tsarist Russia from 1906 to 1911. His name is connected with a period of fierce political reaction. He issued a number of agrarian laws designed to create strong kulak farms in the countryside as a social bulwark for the tsarist autocracy. p. 425 542 The Agrarian Programme of the 104—the agrarian bill signed by 104 members of the First Duma and tabled by the Trudoviks at the thirteenth sitting on May 23 (June 5), 1906. The bill said the aim of agrarian legislation was “to strive to establish an order under which all land with its minerals and waters would belong to the whole people, with the land required for agriculture being given for use only to those who would cultivate it by their labour” (Gosudarstvennaya duma v Rossii v dokumentakh i materialakh [The State Duma in Russia in Documents and Materials], Moscow, 1957, p. 172). The Trudoviks demanded the establishment of a “nation-wide land fund” which was to include all the state, crown, cabinet, monastery and church lands; there was also to be a forcible alienation into the fund of landed estates and other privately owned lands where the size of possessions was in excess of the labour norm established for the given area. Some compensation was to be paid for the alienated privately owned lands. Allot- ments and small privately owned tracts were to be retained by their owners for some time; the bill provided for a subsequent gradual transfer of these lands as well to the nation-wide fund. The agrarian reform was to be carried out by local committees elected by universal, direct and equal suffrage with secret ballot. p. 425 543 This is an unfinished reply to the letter of the soldiers’ committee of the 8th Horse Artillery Battery (army in the field) sent to the Petrograd Soviet. It was dated April 24 (May 7), 1917, that is, the period when the bourgeois and after it the petty-bourgeois press 594 NOTES

started a slander campaign against Lenin and the other members of the Bolshevik Party who had returned to Russia from Switzer- land via Germany. The soldiers’ letter said: “In view of the fact that there is much friction over Lenin among the soldiers of the battery, please let us have the earliest possible reply. What is his origin? Where had he been? If he had been exiled, what for? How did he return to Russia and what is he doing at present, that is, are his acts doing us good or harm? In short, we should like to be convinced by your letter, so as to stop our arguments, lose no more time and be able to prove our point to other comrades as well” (Pravda No. 86 of April 16, 1927). The letter was passed on to Lenin. p. 430 544 This is a short record of Lenin’s report about the results of the Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.) at a city meeting of the Petrograd Party organisation held at the Naval Cadet Corps building and attended by 5,000-6,000 Party members. It was made by V. I. Nevsky and was to be published in the papers, but was not. The report was first published in 1927 in the first book of Zapiski Instituta Lenina (Transactions of the Lenin Institute). p. 431

545 Krupskaya wrote the article in connection with the slander campaign started by the bourgeois and S.R. and Menshevik press against Lenin and other Bolsheviks who had returned to Russia via Ger- many. Lenin made the insertion as he was editing the article. It was published in Soldatskaya Pravda No. 21 on May 13 (26), 1917. p. 435

546 Vperyod (Forward)—a mass workers’ newspaper of the Bolshevik trend, directed by Lenin; it was published illegally in Vyborg by the Editorial Board of Proletary from September 10 (23), 1906, to January 19 (February 1), 1908. There were 20 issues. It carried a number of articles by Lenin. p. 435

547 A. V. Lunacharsky, who spoke before Lenin, proposed an ultimatum to the governments of France and Britain to make them accept the formula of peace without annexations and indemnities, and the announcing of a ceasefire on all fronts. At the same time, said Lu- nacharsky, we must appeal to the peoples of the Allied countries and also of Germany and Austria, urging them to exert pressure on their governments with all means at their disposal. If the Ger- man Government should insist on continuing the war under this unconditional formula, the falsity of its assertion that it was waging a defensive war would be exposed. p. 436

548 Volya Naroda (People’s Will)—a daily, the organ of the Right wing of the S.R. Party. It was published in Petrograd from April 29, 1917, and closed down in November 1917. Later it appeared under other names and was closed down for good in February 1918. p. 438 NOTES 595

549 Novaya Zhizn (New Life)—a daily published in Petrograd from April 18 (May 1), 1917, to July 1918. It was started by a group of Menshevik internationalists and writers connected with the journal Letopis. Characterising this group, Lenin said that “intellectual scepticism, which conceals and expresses lack of principle, is the dominant mood” in their midst (see present edition, Vol. 25, pp. 274-75) , and ironically called them “would-be internationalists” and “pseudo-Marxists”. The newspaper took a hostile attitude to the Socialist Revolution in October 1917 and the establishment of the Soviet power. From June 1, 1918, it had two editions: one in Petrograd, another in Moscow. Both were closed down in July 1918.p. 439 550 Lenin’s report, which was central in the work of the All-Russia Conference of Front and Rear Military Organisations of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.), has been preserved in two variants: as recorded by a correspondent of Novaya Zhizn, which published it the following day, June 21 (July 4), 1917, and by M. S. Kedrov (see his reminiscences “The All-Russia Conference of Military Organisa- tions of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.)” in the book Velikaya Oktyabrskaya Sotsialisticheskaya Revolutsia. Sbornik vospominany uchastnikov revolutsii v Petrograde i Moskve [The Great October Socialist Revolution. A Collection of Reminiscences by Participants in the Revolution in Petrograd and Moscow], Moscow, 1957, pp. 77-79). The All-Russia Conference of Front and Rear Military Organi- sations of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.) was held in Petrograd from June 16 to 23 (June 29 to July 6), 1917. It was attended by 107 delegates from 43 front and 17 rear military Bolshevik organisations uniting almost 26,000 members of the Party. It was called by the Organ- ising Bureau of the Central Committee Military Organisation. On its agenda were these questions: reports from the localities; attitude to the resolutions of the Seventh (April) Conference; the present situation; organisation of power and the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies; the war, the peace and the offensive; the agrarian question and others. Lenin gave reports on the present situation and on the agrarian question. The conference recognised the need to replace the standing army by armed workers’ battalions of the Red Guard placed at the disposal of the elected workers’ organisations, and to replace the police by the people’s militia (see K.P.S.S. v rezolutsiyakh..., Part I, pp. 354-67). The conference decided to regard the newspaper Soldatskaya Pravda as the Central Organ of the military organisations of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.), approved the draft Rules for the Military Organisation and elected the All-Russia Central Bureau of Military Organisations consisting of M. S. Kedrov, N. V. Krylenko, V. I. Nevsky, N. I. Podvoisky and others. The conference was of great importance in strengthening the ties between the proletariat and the soldier mass and helped to extend the work of the Bolsheviks among the soldiers.p. 439

551 The theses were written by Lenin on July 10 (23), 1917, and defined the new tactical line of the Bolshevik Party in connection with 596 NOTES

the changed political situation following the fusillade of the workers’ and soldiers’ demonstration on July 4 (17) and the transfer of all power into the hands of the counter-revolutionary Provisional Government. The theses were discussed at an Enlarged Conference of the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.) together with representatives of the St. Petersburg Committee, the Military Organisation of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.) Central Committee, the Moscow Regional Bureau, the Moscow Committee and the Moscow District Committee, held on July 13 and 14 (26-27), 1917. The theses were published in the form of an article under the title “Political Mood” on August 2 (July 20), 1917, in the newspaper Proletarskoye Dyelo. It was the organ of the Bolshevik group of the Kronstadt Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, and was published in place of the Bolshevik newspaper Golos Pravdy, closed down in July by the Provisional Government. When the manuscript was being prepared for the press, the subtitle “Four Theses” and points 1, 2, 3, 4, the words “in the thesis” and also the end of the article (beginning with the words “Form illegal organisations...) were deleted; the words “armed uprising” were replaced by the words “resolute struggle”. The manuscript heading also contained the word “latest” in front of the words “Political Situation”, which was also crossed out, but there is no certainty that it was done in connection with the publication of the document in the legal press since in that case the word “situation” would have been replaced by the word “mood”. It should also be borne in mind that Lenin himself later mentioned in his “Aide memoire” (see Fifth Russian edition of the Col- lected Works, Vol. 34, pp. 443-44) his theses on “the political situation” (and not “the latest political situation”). Finally, this document, since its first publication as belonging to Lenin (1925), has gone down in the Party history and is known to everyone precisely as “The Political Situation”. Accordingly, the word “latest” has not been restored in Vol. 34 of the Fifth Russian edition of the Collected Works. p. 440

552 Full power passed into the hands of the counter-revolutionary Provisional Government after the events of July 3-5, which were an expression of the most profound political crisis gripping the country. The failure of the Russian offensive at the front started by Kerensky on June 18 (31), the fresh sacrifices made for the benefit of the imperialists, the growth of unemployment in view of the closure of enterprises by the capitalists, the growing cost of living and the acute shortage of the foodstuffs caused an explosion of indignation among the broad masses of workers and soldiers over the counter-revolutionary policy of the Provisional Govern- ment. On July 3 (16) spontaneous demonstrations developed and threatened to grow into an armed uprising against the Provisional Government. At the moment, the Bolshevik Party was against any armed action, for it believed that the revolutionary crisis had not yet matured, and that the army and the provinces were not yet ready NOTES 597

to support the uprising in the capital. A meeting of the Central Committee held on July 3 (16) together with the St. Petersburg Committee and the Military Organisation of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.) Central Committee, decided to refrain from taking any action. A similar decision was also taken by the Second Petrograd City Conference of the Bolsheviks then in session. The delegates went to the districts to restrain the masses from taking action. But it had already begun and it proved impossible to stop it. In view of the mood of the masses, the Central Committee, together with the St. Petersburg Committee and the Military Organisation, late at night on July 3 (16), decided to participate in the demonstration on July 4 (17) so as to lend it a peaceful and organised character. At the time, Lenin was away: he was ill due to overwork and had gone to the countryside for a few days’ rest. When he was informed of the events, he returned to Petrograd on the morning of July 4 (17) and took over direction of the events. More than 500,000 took part in the demonstration on July 4 (17). It was stared under Bolshevik slogans: “All power to the Soviets!” and others. The demonstrators nominated 90 representatives, who handed to the Central Executive Committee of the Soviets a demand for the transfer of all the power to the Soviets. However, the S.R. and Menshevik leaders refused to take over. With the knowledge and consent of the Menshevik-S.R. Central Executive Committee, the Provisional Government decided to suppress the demonstration by armed force. Military cadet and counter-revolutionary Cossack regiments were thrown against the peaceable demonstration of workers and soldiers. They opened fire on the demonstrators. Reactionary-minded military units were summoned from the front. The conference of members of the C.C. and the St. Petersburg Committee, held under Lenin’s direction on the night of July 4 (17), decided to stop the demonstration in an organised manner. This was a correct step taken by the Party, which succeeded in retreating at a right time and preserving the main forces of the revolution from being routed. After the dispersal of the demonstration, the bourgeois Provi- sional Government continued its reprisals. It attacked the Bol- shevik Party with special ferocity. The Bolshevik newspapers Pravda, Soldatskaya Pravda and others were closed down. Work- ers were disarmed, and arrests, searches and pogroms followed. The revolutionary units of the Petrograd garrison which had taken part in the demonstration were disbanded and sent to the front. The Mensheviks and S.R.s were accomplices of the counter-revolutionary butchers. p. 440 553 The letter was written after the text of the leaflet, and judging by its content was intended for the Party Central Committee. The leaflet was not published. Lenin may have been the author of the leaflet. p. 443 554 The theses were first published in full in Vol. 34 of the Fifth Russian edition of the Collected Works. The First edition of the 598 NOTES

Collected Works (Vol. 14, Part II), and the Fourth edition of the Collected Works (Vol. 26), did not contain the section “On the List of Candidates for the Constituent Assembly” and the note to it. In Vol. 21 of the Second and Third editions of the Collected Works it was published in part. The Third Petrograd City Conference was held from October 7 to 11 (20 to 24), 1917. It was attended by 92 delegates with vote and 40 delegates with voice only. Lenin was elected honorary chairman. Lenin’s theses were the basis of the Conference decisions. In a resolution on the present situation, the Conference declared the need to replace the Kerensky government by a workers’ and peasants’ revolutionary government, for only such a government could give land to the peasants and take the country out of the war and the ruin. The Conference adopted resolutions “On the Red Guard” and “On the Hunger Strike by Political Prison- ers in the Case of July 3 (16)-5 (18)”. Its decisions emphasised that the country was on the eve of a massive proletarian uprising and expressed the firm conviction that the uprising would be victorious. The Conference discussed the question of elections to the Constituent Assembly, Lenin being among the first candidates nominated from Petrograd. The sitting on October 11 (24) heard Lenin’s “Letter to the Petrograd City Conference” (see present edition, Vol. 26, pp. 145-48). The Conference played a very important part in the preparation of the Great October Socialist Revolution. p. 446

555 The Provisional Government announced the convocation of the Constituent Assembly in its Declaration of March 2 (15), 1917. On June 14 (27), the Provisional Government adopted a decision appointing the elections to the Constituent Assembly on Sep- tember 17 (30). But in August it postponed the elections until November 12 (25). The elections were held after the victory of the October Social- ist Revolution, on the appointed day. Polling took place by lists drawn up before the October Revolution and under the statute approved by the Provisional Government. A considerable section of the people had not yet had time to grasp the full significance of the socialist revolution, which was used by the Right-wing S.R.s, who managed to win majorities in gubernias and regions, far away from the capital and industrial centres. The Constituent Assembly was convened by the Soviet Government and opened in Petrograd on January 5 (18), 1918. The counter-revolutionary majority of the Constituent Assembly rejected the “Declaration of the Rights of the Working and Exploited People” which was placed before it by the All-Russia Central Executive Committee, and refused to recognise the Soviet power. The bourgeois Constit- uent Assembly was dissolved by a decree of the All-Russia Central Executive Committee on January 6 (19). p. 446

556 Mezhraiontsi—members of the Inter-District Organisation of the United Social-Democrats which arose in St. Petersburg in Novem- ber 1913 with the idea of working for R.S.D.L.P. unity. Behind NOTES 599

the slogan of unity, and in an effort to merge the Bolshevik and the Menshevik organisations in St. Petersburg, the mezhraiontsi actually set up their own factional organisation, which included Trotskyite Mensheviks and also a section of former Bolsheviks who took a conciliatory attitude towards the opportunists. During the First World War, the mezhraiontsi adopted a Centrist stand; they recognised the war as imperialist and opposed social- chauvinism, but did not agree to a full break-away from the Men- sheviks. In 1917, the mezhraiontsi organisation, which included A. Joffe, A. Lunacharsky, D. Manuilsky, L. Trotsky, M. Uritsky, V. Volodarsky and I. Yurenev, announced its agreement with the Bolshevik Party line. At the Sixth Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.) the mezhraiontsi organisation (almost 4,000 members) broke away from the Menshevik defencists and was admitted to the Bolshevik Party. Subsequent events showed that some mezhraiontsi (including Lunacharsky, Manuilsky, Volodarsky and Uritsky) did in fact break with their Centrist past and became prominent members of the Bolshevik Party. But Trotsky, even after he entered the Bolshevik Party, did not become a Bolshevik and carried on a secret and open struggle against Leninism and the Party’s policy. He became the bitterest enemy of Leninism, the Soviet state and the entire international communist movement. The mezhraiontsi published their own periodical—the journal Vperyod (one issue appeared in 1915 illegally). Its publication was resumed in 1917: from June to August it was published legally as the organ of the St. Petersburg Inter-District Committee of the United Social-Democrats (internationalists); there were 8 issues. After the Sixth Party Congress, the Editorial Board was changed and No. 9 appeared as an organ of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.) Central Committee. In September its publication was discontinued under a Central Committee decision. p. 447

557 Dyelo Naroda (The People’s Cause)—a daily, the organ of the S.R. Party, published in Petrograd from March 1917 to July 1918, repeatedly under different names. It took a defencist and conciliatory stand, and supported the bourgeois Provisional Govern- ment. Its publication was resumed in Samara in October 1918 (four issues) and in Moscow in March 1919 (ten issues). The paper was closed down for its counter-revolutionary activity. p. 448

558 A reference to the speeches of Y. M. Sverdlov, J. V. Stalin, F. E. Dzerzhinsky and G. Y. Sokolnikov at the Central Com- mittee’s sitting on October 20 (November 2), 1917, during the discussion of Lenin’s letter to the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.) (see present edition, Vol. 26, pp. 191-94) in connection with the publication in the semi-Menshevik newspaper Novaya Zhizn of an item entitled “Y. Kamenev on the ‘Upri- sing’”, in which Kamenev, on behalf of Zinoviev and himself, opposed the armed uprising. See Protokoly Tsentralnogo Komiteta R.S.D.R.P.(B.). Avgust 1917 -fevral 1918 (Minutes of the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.[B.]. August 1917-February 1918), 1958, pp. 106-08. p. 450 600 NOTES

559 The Cossack demonstration, or the Cossack “religious procession”, in Petrograd was set for October 22 (November 4), 1917, and was regarded by the counter-revolutionaries as a show of force in their struggle against the mounting revolution. The Bolsheviks carried on extensive agitation among the Cossacks urging them to refrain from taking part in the demonstration. The Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies issued an appeal to the Cossacks. Representatives of the Cossack regiments were invited to a conference of regimental committees held by the Petrograd Soviet in Smolny on October 21 (November 3). At the conference, the Cossacks declared that they would not act against the workers and soldiers. The night before the demonstration, the Provisional Government was forced to call it off. p. 451 601

NAME INDEX

A Bebel, August—207, 208, 248, 339 Belsky—see Krasikov, P. A. Adler, Victor—203, 207, 208, Ber—see Lieber, M. I. 248, 338, 361, 364 Berg—see Martov, L. Adoratsky, V. V. (Arnatsky)— Berger, Victor Louis—364 145, 150 Bernstein, Eduard—340, 366 Adrianov—238 Bethmann-Hollweg, Theobald Aizenstadt, I. L. (Yudin)—233, von—410 234 Birnbaum (Asher), Nathan—322 Akimov (Makhnovets*), V. P.— Bismarck, Otto Eduard Leopold, 93, 94 Prince von—117, 118, 120, 121, Alexander III (Romanov)—430 390 Alexander—see Shlyapnikov, A. G. Bissolati, Leonida—360, 362 Alexeyev, N. A. (Andreyev)—146 Blanqui, Louis Auguste—116, 433 Alexinsky, G. A.—261, 299, 334, Bogdanov, A. A. ( Malinovsky, 447 A. A., Ivanov, Maximov)—149, An—see Jordania, N. N. 159, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, Andreyev—see Alexeyev, N. A. 240, 435 Arnatsky—see Adoratsky, V. V. Bonch-Bruyevich, V. D.—127, 128 Asher—see Birnbaum, Nathan Borchardt, Julian—353, 362 Askew, John B.—359, 365 Boretsky—see Uritsky, M. S. Asquith, Herbert Henry; 1st Earl Borgbjerg, Frederik—409-11 of—289 Bosh, Yevgenia—368 Auhagen, Hubert—129, 130 Bourderon, Albert—359, 362, Aurelle de Paladines, Louis Jean 377 Baptiste d’—116, 121 Bracke, Wilhelm—115 Axelrod, P. B.—37, 39, 53-69, Brandenburgsky, Y. N. (Yevge- 192, 224, 365, 372, 373 ny)—143 Branting, Karl Hjalmar—362, B 396 Braun—see Janson, Y. E. Badayev, A. Y.—270 Brizon, Pierre—363 Balmashev, S. V.—69, 76 Bronski, M. G.—398 Baudrillart, Henry Joseph Léon— Bronstein, P. A. (Yuri)—233, 130 234, 239, 240 Bauer, Otto—314, 315, 316, 322, Buchenberger, Adolf—129, 130 386 Bukharin, N. I.—368, 386 * The names given in brackets in bold type are real names. 602 INDEX OF NAMES

Bukvoyed—see Ryazanov, D. B. E Bulgakov, S. N.—130 Bunin, Y. A.—295 Engels, Frederick—56, 130, 221 Buryanov, A. F.—270, 328 340, 354, 382, 388, 389, 390, 395 Essen, A. M. (Kitayev, Stepa- C nov)—139, 158-59, 160 Essen, E. E. (N. F.)—149 Cavaignac, Louis-Eugène—441 Ezra—see Rozen, M. M. Chaliapin, F. I.—344 Cherevanin, N. (Lipkin, F. A.)— F 173, 174 Chernov, V. M.—62, 288, 439, Favre, Jules—115, 119, 121 441, 448, 449 Ferry, Jules François Camille— Chernyshevsky, N. G.—222 115 Chicherin, G. V. (Ornatsky)— Feuerbach, Ludwig Andreas—222 359 Filatov, V. V. (V. S.)—150, 151 Chkheidze, N. S.—270, 360, 372 Findley, Noel—289 373, 395, 397, 417, 418 Firsov, K. K.—271 Chkhenkeli, A. I.—270 Fischer, Richard—339, 340, 341 Clemenceau, Georges Benjamin— Fortunatov, K. A.—320 209 Frank, Ludwig—343 Compère- Morel, Adéodat Cons- Frankel, Leo—117 tant Adolphe—340 Fridolin, V. Y. (Varin)—368 Fritsch, Baron von—289 D G DÅbrowski, Yaroslaw—117 Dan (Gurvich), F. I.—178, 180, Galperin, L. Y. (Konyagin, 222, 224, 227, 235 Ru)—107 Danielson, N. P. (N.— on)—38 Gapon, G. A.—335 Dansky, B. G. (Komarovsky, K. A., Gelman—417 X)—292, 296 Glebov—see Noskov, V. A. d’Aurelle de Paladines—see Au- Glenconner—289 relle de Paladines, Louis Jean Goldenberg, I. P. (Vishnevsky Baptiste d’ Meshkovsky)—227, 229, 230, 234 David, Eduard—129, 130, 354 Goltz, Theodor Alexander von Debs, Eugene Victor—361, 364, der—129, 130 377 Golubin—see Japaridze, P. A. Denisov, V. P. (Vsevolod)—223 Goremykin, I. L.—35 Desnitsky, V. A. (Sosnovsky)— Gorev, B. I. ( Goldman, B. I., 146 Igorev)—220 Deutsch, L. G.—92, 93 Gorky, Maxim (Peshkov, A. M.)— Dietz, Johann Heinrich Wil- 344-45 helm—35 Gredeskul, N. A.—183, 184 Donald, James—289 Grigory—see Zinoviev, G. Y. Dubrovinsky, I. F. (Innokenty, Grimm, Robert—368, 380, 391- Inok)—233, 234, 239, 240 92, 438 Dupont, Eugène—121 Guchkov, A. I.—404, 408, 440 Durnovo, P. N.—184 Guesde, Jules—335, 339, 342, 373 Dürr, Karl—392 Guilbeaux, Henri—398 Dzerzhinsky, F. E.—450 Guiod, Alphonse-Simon—115 INDEX OF NAMES 603

Gurevich, E. L. (Smirnov, Y.)— Jaurès, Jean-Léon—335, 338 339, 343 Jordania, N. N. (An. Kostrov)— Gvozdev, K. A.—360 90, 188, 233, 234, 238 Jouhaux, Léon—362 H Junius—see Luxemburg, Rosa

Haase, Hugo—306, 340, 365, 371, K 373 Haggard, Henry Rider—130 Kablukov, N. A.—449 Hanecki (Fürstenberg), J. S.— Kalinin, V.—see Karpinsky, V. A. 256 Kamenev, L. B. (Rosenfeld, L. B., Hapsburgs—263, 264 Yuri)—143, 227, 241, 450-51 Hardie, James Keir—340, 341 Kamsky—see Obukhov, V. M. Hartstein—see Levi, Paul Karaulov, M. A.—271-72 Hecht, Moriz—130 Karpinsky, V. A. (Kalinin, V.)— Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Fried- 177 rich—222 Karsky—see Topuridze, D. A. Hertz, Friedrich Otto—71, 74 Kasso, L. A.—244 Hervé, Gustave—202, 340 Katkov, M. N.—439 Hilferding, Rudolf—384, 386, Kautsky, Karl—89, 90, 130, 175, 388 207, 232, 255, 314, 315, 316, Hillquit, Morris—360, 364, 365 319, 321, 322, 339, 341, 342, Hoffmann, Arthur Hermann—438 358, 364, 365, 371, 372, 373, Höglund, Carl Zeth Konstan- 384, 386, 389, 393 tin—362 Keir Hardie—see Hardie Hubach, C.—130 Kerensky, A. F.—436, 440, 441 Huschke, Leo—130 Khaustov, V. I.—270 Huysmans, Camille—306, 365, Khomyakov, N. A.—225 370, 379 Kitayev—see Essen, A. M. Hyndman, Henry Mayers—340, Klawki, Karl—129, 130 359, 363, 373 Knunyants, B. M. (Rusov)—95 Kollontai, Alexandra—368 I Konovalov, A. I.—283-85 Konovalov, I. A. (Nikolai)—179 Ichas, M. M.—271 Konyagin—see Galperin, L. Y. Igorev—see Gorov, B. I. Kostrov—see Jordania, N. N. Ilyin—see Lenin, V. I. Kovalevsky, M. M.—295 Innokenty—see Dubrovinsky, I. F. Kozminykh-Lanin, I. M.—331-33 Inok—see Dubrovinsky, I. F. Kramolnikov, G. I.—158 Ionov (Koigen, F. M.)—238 Krasikov, P. A. (Belsky)—151, Isuv, I. A. (Mikhail)—233, 234, 155, 159 239, 240 Krasin, L. B. (Zimin, Nikita)— Ivanov—see Bogdanov, A. A. 148, 240 Krichevsky, B. N.—225 J Krupskaya, N. K.—323, 435 Krushevan, P. A.—186 Jagiello, E. J.—270, 304, 305, 309 Krylenko, N. V.—447 Janson (Braun), Y. E.—324, 325- Krymov, M. D.—407 26, 328 Kuznetsov—see Litvinov, M. M. Jansson, Wilhelm—396 Kvitkin, O. A. (Petrov)—159, Japaridze, P. A. (Golubin)—170 166 604 INDEX OF NAMES

L Longuet, Jean—358, 365, 372 Lopatin, G. A.—319 L. M.—see Martov, L. Louis Philippe—115 L. V.—see Vladimirov, M. K. Lunacharsky, A. V. (Voinov)— Laffargue, François—289 148, 151, 163, 202, 224, 436 Lange—see Stopani, A. M. Luxemburg, Rosa (Junius)—225, Larin, Y. (Lourie, M. A. )—179, 248, 255-60, 299, 387, 388, 390 191-93, 243, 360, 446, 447 Luzzatti, Luigi—338 Lashevich, M. M.—407 Lyadov (Mandelstam), M. N.— Latyshev—see Litvinov, M. M. 88, 89, 127, 158, 220, 223, 225 Lecomte, Claude-Martin—117, 121 Lyubich—see Sammer, I. A. Lecouteux, Edouard—130 Lyubimov, A. I. (Mark)—143, 144 Ledebour, Georg—353 Leder, V. L.—339 M Ledru-Rollin, Alexandre-Augu- ste—174 MacDonald, James Ramsay—340, Leiteisen, G. D. (Vyazemsky, 343 Lindov)—233, 234, 237 Maclean, John—403 Lengnik, F. V. (Vasilyev)—107, Makar—see Nogin, V. P 110 Malecki, A. M.—256, 334 Lenin, V. I. (Ulyanov, V. I., Malinovsky, R. V.—270, 277 Ilyin)—66, 69, 104, 105, 106, Manuilov, A. A.—295 107, 108, 109, 110, 124, 125, 126- Marat—see Shantser, V. L 27, 134-35, 139-41, 144, 145- Mark—see Lyubimov, A. I. 46, 149, 150, 157, 158-59, 160, Markov, N. Y. (Markov II)—249 161, 162, 163, 164, 181, 216, Martov, L. (Tsederbaum, Y. O., 219, 220, 222, 223-24, 225, 226, Berg, L. M.)—39, 63, 74, 92- 247, 255, 256, 257, 324, 325, 93, 95, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, 327-28, 352, 368, 396, 397, 398, 122, 123-24, 174, 179, 188, 196, 399, 403, 404, 405, 406, 417-18, 222, 224, 225, 255, 256, 306, 427, 428, 430, 435, 436, 439, 327, 344, 360, 361, 365, 372, 450 380, 435 Lensch, Paul—388, 389 Martynov, A. (Pieker, A. S.)— Leonov—see Tskhakaya, M. G. 55, 59, 60, 61, 65, 89, 93-94, Lepeshinsky, P. N. (Olin)—127 168, 220, 240 Lepeshinsky, M. S. (Morozov)— Marx, Karl—36, 56, 121, 130, 143 168, 174, 221, 319, 354, 382, Levi (Hartstein), Paul—398 389, 414 Levin, Y. Y. (Yegorov)—92 Maslov, P. P.—339, 384 Levinsky, V.—344 Maslov, S. L.—450 Lieber, M. I. (Goldman, M. I., Maximov—see Bogdanov, A. A. Ber)—87, 88, 198, 238 Mavrin, I. F.—407 Liebknecht, Karl—340, 348, 354, Medem (Grinberg), V. D.—320, 356, 360, 361, 377, 383, 392, 437 323 Liebknecht, Wilhelm—288 Mehring, Franz—340, 341 Lindov—see Leiteisen, G. D. Menshikov, M. O.—439 Lissagaray, Prosper Olivier—117 Merrheim, Alphonse—362 Litvinov, M. M. (Kuznetsov, Mershchy, P. F.—271 Latyshev)—158, 159 Meshkovsky—see Goldenberg, I. P. Lloyd George, David—362 Mikha—see Tskhakaya, M. G. Lomtatidze, V. B.—311-12 Mikhail—see Isuv, I. A, INDEX OF NAMES 605

Mikhailov—see Postolovsky, D. S. Picard, Louis Joseph Ernest—115 Mikhailov, N. N.—33-34 Pisarev, D. I.—37 Mikhailovsky, N. K.—36-38 Platten, Friedrich (Fritz)—396, Milyukov, P. N.—284, 295, 408, 397-98, 403 416 Plekhanov, G. V. (Valentinov)— Molkenbuhr, Hermann—248 39, 40, 42, 53-69, 104, 107, 109, Morgari, Oddino—372, 391 122, 123, 134-35, 188, 192, 202, Morozov—see Leshchinsky, M. S. 224, 225, 227, 247, 258, 261, Morozov, T. S.—132 275, 287, 288, 299-300, 304, Mühlburg—289 309, 334, 335, 339, 353, 358, Muranov, M. K.—277 364, 373, 409, 429 Pokrovsky, M. N.—447 N Pokrovsky, V. I.—300-01 Poletayev, N. G.—227 N. F.—see Essen, E. E. Postolovsky, D. S. (Vadim, Mi- Napoleon III (Louis Bonaparte)— khailov)—148, 168, 227 114, 115, 118, 119, 121 Potresov, A. N. (Starover)—96, Natanson, M. A.—435 135, 224, 287, 288, 384, 385, Nicholas II (Romanov)—264, 268, 386, 395 431 Pressemane, Adrien—365, 372 Nikita—see Krasin, L. B. Proudhon, Pierre Joseph—315 Nikolai—see Konovalov, I. A. Purishkevich, V. M.—283, 284 Nobel, Alfred Bernhard—288 Pyatakov, G. L.—368 Nogin, V. P. (Maker)—233, 234, Pyotr—see Ramishvili, N. V. 237, 239, 412 N.—on—see Danielson, N. F. Q North—289 Noskov, V. A. (Glebov, Yefimov) Quelch, Harry—248 —93, 107, 125, 127, 142, 144 R O R. N. S.—see Struve, P. B. Obukhov, V. M. (Kamsky)—151 Rabinovich—323 Olga—see Ravich, Sofia Radek, K. B.—255-60, 353, 368, Olin—see Lepeshinsky, P. N. 384, 385 Ornatsky—see Chicherin, G. V. Ramishvili, N. V. (Pyotr)—217, 219, 234, 239, 240 P Rappoport, Charles—299 Rasputin (Novykh), G. Y.—335 Paladines—see Aurelle de Pala- Ravich, Sofia (Olga)—140 dines, Louis Jean Baptiste d’ Remy, Léon—192 Pannekoek, Anton—315, 384, 385, Renaudel, Pierre—373 393 Rocquigny, Robert—129, 130 Parvus (Gelfand, A. L.)—145, 174 Rodzyanko, M. V.—284 Patouillet, Joseph—388, 389 Roland-Holst, Henriette—358 Pavlenkov, F. F.—324 Rolland, Romain—294 Petrov—see Kvitkin, O. A. Roman—see Yermolayev, K. M. Petrovsky, G. I.—270, 447 Romanovs—263 Petrunkevich, I. I.—174 Rozen, M. M. (Ezra)—216, 217 Pernerstorfer, Engelbert—360, Rozhkov, N. A.—234, 242-43 364 Ru—see Galperin, L. Y. 606 INDEX OF NAMES

Rubanovich, I. A.—208 Stopani, A. M. (Lange)—89 Ruge, Arnold—382 Strakhov—see Takhtarev, K. M. Rühle, Otto—356, 359, 360, 362, Ström, Frederik—396 377 Struve, P. B. (R. N. S.)—34, 36, Rumyantsev, P. P. (Schmidt)— 73, 96, 163, 313, 345, 388 152, 162, 179 Stumpfe, Emil—130 Rusanov, A. N.—270 Sudakov, P. I.—266-67 Rusov—see Knunyants, B. M. Südekum, Albert—341, 373-74 Russel, Charles Edward—360, 364 Sukhanov, N. (Gimmer, N. N.)— Ryazanov, D. B. ( Goldendakh, 368 D. B., Bukvoyed)—36, 364 Sun Yat-sen—281-83 Rybkin—166 Susane, Louis—115 Rykov, A. I. (Vlasov, Sergeyev)— Sverdlov, Y. M.—450 155, 157, 229 Ryslev, A. I.—270 T

S Takhtarev, K. M. (Strakhov)—86 Talalayev, V. T.—33 Safarov, G. I.—368 Taratuta, V. K. (Victor)—240 Sammer, I. A. (Lyubich)—234, Tennant, Harold John—289 240 Thiers, Louis Adolphe—115, 116, Samoilov, F. N.—270 118, 121 Saumoneau, Louise—363 Thomas, Albert—379 Sazonov, S. D.—265 Thomas, Jacques-Léonard-Clé- Scheidemann, Philipp—410 ment—117, 121 Schmidt—see Rumyantsev, P. P. Tkachov, P. N.—37 Schneeberger, Friedrich Oskar— Tomsky, M. P.—435 392 Topuridze, D. A. (Karsky)—89 Sergeyev—see Rykov, A. I. Trepov, D. F.—182 Serrati, Giacinto Menotti—354 Trevelyan, Charles Philips—342 Shagov, N. R.—270 Trèves, Claudio—362, 372, 373 Shanster, V. L. (Marat)—224, Trier, Gerson—411 225, 226, 229 Trochu, Louis-Jules—115, 119, 121 Shingaryov, A. I.—405, 416, 425 Troelstra, Pieter Jelles—362 Shlyapnikov, A. G. (Alexander)— Trotsky (Bronstein), L. D.—242 368 247, 248, 328, 351, 358, 360, Skobelev, M. I.—270, 437 403, 447 Skvortsov, A. I.—67, 68 Tsereteli, I. G.—417, 418, 441 Smirnov, Y.—see Gurevich, E. I. Tskhakaya, M. G. (Leonov, Mi- Sokolnikov, G. Y.—418, 450 kha)—142, 224, 397 Solovyov—426, 428 Tulyakov, I. N.—270 Sosnovsky—see Desnitsky, V. A. Turgenev, I. S.—256 Souchon, Augusto—130 Tyszka, Jan (Jogiches, Léon)— Stalin (Jugashvili), J. V.—450 257 Stanislav—see Volsky, S. A. Starover—see Potresov, A. N. U Stauning, Thorvald August Mari- nus—411-12 Ulyanov, A. I.—430 Steklov, Y. M.—227 Ulyanov, V. I.—see Lenin, V. I. Stepanov—see Essen, A. M. Uritsky, M. S. (Boretsky)—360, Stolypin, P. A.—213, 238, 242 361 INDEX OF NAMES 607

V Wilhelm II (Hohenzollern)—389, 403, 405, 410, 431 V. S.—see Filatov, V. V. Williams, T. Russel—377 V. V.—see Vorontsov, V. P. Winnig, August—359, 362 Vadim—see Postolovsky, D. S. Wirth, Albrecht—389 Vaillant, Edouard Marie—340, Witte, S. Y.—35, 66, 67, 184 362 Wróblewski, Walery—117 Valentin, Louis-Ernest—116, 121 Valentinov—see Plekhanov, G. V. X Vandervelde, Emile—203, 339, 341, 342, 355, 373 X—see Dansky Varin—see Fridolin, V. Y. Vasilyev—see Lengnik, F. V. Y Vedernikov, A. S.—417 Victor—see Taratuta, V. K. Yakovenko, V. I.—37 Vinogradov, P. G.—295, 296 Yefimov—see Noskov, V. A. Vinoy, Joseph—116, 121 Yegorov—see Levin, Y. Y. Vishnevsky—see Goldenberg, I. P. Yermolayev, K. M. (Roman)— Vladimirov, M. K. (Sheinfinkel, 233, 234, 239, 240 M. K., L. V.)—335 Yevgeny—see Brandenburgsky, Vlasov—see Rykov, A. I. Y. N. Voinov—see Lunacharsky, A. V. Yevseyev, I. T.—271 Vollmar, Georg Heinrich—203 Yüan Shih-k’ai—281-82 Volsky, S. A. (Sokolov, A. V., Yudin—see Aizenstadt, I. L. Stanislav)—223, 439 Yuri—see Bronstein, P. A. Voronin, I. A.—33 Yuri—see Kamenev, L. B. Vorontsov, V. P. (V. V.)—36, 74 Yuzov (Kablits, I. I.)—37 Vsevolod—see Denisov, V. P. Vyazemsky—see Leiteisen, G. D. Z

W Zasulich, Vera—91 Zetkin, Clara—201-03, 354 Warski, Adolf ( Warszawski, Zhitlovsky, Kh. I.—71 A. S.)—319 Ziemelis, S.—329 Wendel, Hermann—338, 339 Zimin—see Krasin, L. B. Wijnkoop, David—358 Zinoviev (Radomyslsky), G. Y.— Wilhelm I (Hohenzollern)—114, 216, 397, 402-03, 40-6, 435, 450 121 Zurabov, A. G.—403 B. n. leHnH coЧnHeHnr

TOM 41

На английскот языке

Printed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics